Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Breathalysers (Random Tests)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport what is his present policy regarding random breath tests.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to introduce proposals for random breathalyser tests.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I have no plans for any change in the law at present.

Mr. Davidson: Is there any evidence to suggest that some drivers are becoming more complacent and "slap-happy" about driving and drinking than they were soon after the breathalyser was introduced, and, if there is such evidence,

short of introducing random breath tests, which my right hon. Friend is right to turn his mind against, in my view, has my right hon. Friend any plan to halt such a regrettable tendency shortly before Christmas?

Mr. Marsh: Casualty savings are still very high. In September, for example, the saving compared with September last year was 7 per cent., and deaths were down 15 per cent. Any drivers who are becoming careless about it are very foolish, because these are savings which we could not afford to lose.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Minister confirm that, in spite of what he said at a meeting a week or two ago, the police intend to prosecute only those people whom they genuinely believe to be suffering under the influence of drink?

Mr. Marsh: I have never said anything different from that which the hon. Gentleman has just said. The police are responsible for enforcing the law. The only point that I made was that the law makes no exception for people driving away from public houses. The public sometimes assume that a driver doing that is in some way sacrosanct.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that, so far as his Department is concerned, he does not retreat in any way from the assurance given on the Second Reading of the second Road Safety Bill, that there was no question of the police setting up traps


just round the corner from public houses and waiting to pounce? Does he stand by that?

Mr. Marsh: The position is perfectly clear. Random tests were not contemplated and they are not the case now. The only point I was making in the discusion which I had with a journalist was that, if a person is moving away from a public house at night and seems to be unsteady on his feet, it is at least as likely that he may have been drinking as if he were coming from a church.

Cars (Design)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what research is being done at the Road Research Laboratory on the effect of speed limits on car design.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): None, Sir.

Mr. Digby: Will the Minister ask it to do so? Is he aware of the immense importance of car exports to our balance of payments? There is a danger of our cars becoming less and less suited to Continental conditions rather than more and more suited to them.

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the views of the industry, but we cannot yet see any clear effects to show that more research is really necessary.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the effect of different features of the designs of private cars currently in production in Great Britain on the safety of passengers.

Mr. Bob Brown: Work on the principles of safe design and on features of cars currently in use is continuously undertaken in the Ministry and Road Research Laboratory, by the Motor Industry Research Association, and by motor manufacturers and many other people.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of fatal accidents on our roads every month? Why is it not worth while to examine the information available from these accidents and draw conclusions from them?

Mr. Brown: The Question refers to the safe design of cars. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that British cars are the safest designed in the world.

Speed Limits

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if, in his reconsideration of speed limits, he will consider imposing higher limits on uphill sections of road in built-up areas than on the same sections of road downhill.

Mr. Bob Brown: No, Sir: this could introduce too many changes in the level of speed limit within any one built up area.

Sir R. Russell: Does not the Minister agree that cars going uphill pull up much more quickly than cars going downhill? As that is generally understood, it would not be difficult to differentiate between one direction and another.

Mr. Brown: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but a speed limit should be applied over a fairly lengthy section of road and not short stretches.

London Transport (Local Government Control)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the integration of transport in London under local government control.

Mr. Marsh: The Government's proposals were set out in the White Paper "Transport in London"(Cmnd. 3686) published in July. The Transport (London) Bill, designed to give effect to these proposals, is now before the House.

Mr. Sheldon: Whilst I welcome the Bill, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that marked concern is felt by many people outside London for the subsidies that London Transport has received? Can he hold out any hope that the subsidies will now end, because people outside the London area do not like paying for the congestion of London?

Mr. Marsh: With a Londoner's hat on, I should say that there are special circumstances in relation to London as the capital of the nation, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that Londoners pay for their own transport.

Mrs. Thatcher: Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit? Do his plans include an increase in fares for London Transport to make it a viable unit?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Lady has seen the London Transport White Paper and the Bill. We shall no doubt have a fascinating discussion on Second Reading.

Commercial Vehicles (Testing and Plating)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on progress with the scheme for testing and plating commercial vehicles.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The scheme was introduced in England and Wales on 1st October and in Scotland on 1st December. The oldest classes of motor vehicles and trailers are now being plated and tested at Ministry testing stations. The arrangements for carrying out the inspections are working well. The results of tests conducted to date are encouraging.

Mr. Campbell: In view of the delay in starting the scheme and the comparatively small number of vehicles tested so far, have the Government done enough to publicise the requirements? What action will the Minister take if many of the appropriate vehicles are not submitted for testing by the target dates?

Mr. Carmichael: The Government have gone to great lengths to publicise this in the newspapers, trade magazines and the technical Press. A number of television appearances have also been made, and as the new stations were opened I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made a point of stressing their importance. If vehicles have not been tested after a certain date, the owners will be liable to prosecution.

Mr. Webster: In view of the shortfall of £900,000 in the winter Supplementary Estimates, what will be the revised estimates for receipts next year?

Mr. Carmichael: I need notice of that question.

Bus Fares (North-East Essex)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport what was the result of the

appeal under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, concerning the increase in bus fares in North-East Essex of between 30 and 40 per cent.; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Carmichael: We have received the report of the independent inspector who held an inquiry into this case and my right hon. Friend will announce a decision shortly.

Mr. Ridsdale: As this severe rise took place in May, surely it would have been quicker to send it to the Prices and Incomes Board? Is not the scale of the increase outside the Government's prices and incomes policy? Will he expedite this matter as quickly as possible?

Mr. Carmichael: The standstill provisions of the Prices and Incomes Act do not apply to decisions made by traffic commissioners. My right hon. Friend will publish the report as soon as he studies, it.

Foreign Lorries (Insurance and Licensing)

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to ensure that foreign lorries using British roads are insured and licensed.

Mr. Carmichael: The licensing and insurance laws are well known by foreign hauliers and we are not aware of any particular problem requiring other than normal enforcement action.

Mr. Atkins: Is there not a case for foreign lorries contributing to the cost of British roads, just as British lorries do on the Continent generally?

Mr. Carmichael: They do. Through the international agreement, they must have permission and a green card to travel on our roads. It is a mutual agreement between the various nations whose vehicles use roads in other countries.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: What action will the Government take to ensure that British lorries have Excise licences, now that the carrier licensing system is no longer applicable to vehicles of an unladen weight of 30 cwt. and less, and in that way to eliminate pirate vehicles?

Mr. Carmichael: This is one feature which we are hoping to deal with by means of the new Bill which goes to


Committee tomorrow. Because of the new computerisation of Excise licences, evasion will be more difficult than hitherto.

National Freight Corporation

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport if he will announce the name and salary of the chairman of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Marsh: I have appointed Sir Reginald Wilson as Chairman of the National Freight Corporation for two years with effect from today. His salary, which has been assessed on a personal basis, will be £16,000 a year.

Mr. Webster: Is the Minister aware that we are delighted that at last, as a result of long probing from this side, this excellent appointment has been made—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is not pleased with the appointment. I am sure that it is an excellent one. Can the Minister say that the transition is taking place in a smooth manner?

Mr. Marsh: Yes. Under this Government all transitions take place in a smooth manner.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will come as a surprise to many Members on this side that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the announcement of the appointment and salary today, because we understood that he and his colleagues were against the appointment and the National Freight Corporation?

Mr. Marsh: With respect to my hon. Friend, he has been here long enough not to be surprised by the schizophrenic attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport if he will announce the name and salaries of the members of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Marsh: I have, after consultation with the Chairman, appointed the following as members of the National Freight Corporation with effect from today:

Rt. Hon. Frank Cousins.
Sir Andrew Crichton.
Mr. F. Lane, B.E.M.
Mr. F. S. Law.

Mr. R. L. E. Lawrence, O.B.E.
Sir Robert MacLean.
Mr. D. E. A. Pettit.
Mr. G. W. Quick Smith, C.B.E.

Mr. Quick Smith, who will be the Chief Executive of the Corporation, has been appointed a full-time member for two years. His salary will be £10,000 a year, on a personal basis. The other appointments will all be part-time for three years, at a salary of £1,000 a year.

Mr. Webster: Can the Minister tell us how many of these appointments are part-time, how many are functional—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister said so."]—the Minister said that one was part-time. Perhaps he can tell us more about it. Could he also say to what extent they are functional—whether, in the case of Mr. Cousins, this will be to look after the labour relations side—or can he give us any further details?

Mr. Marsh: It would be an extraordinary business to have part-time functional members on boards such as this. The Answer was that Mr. Quick Smith, who will be the Chief Executive of the Corporation, has been appointed full-time member for two years. The other appointments will be part-time.

British Waterways Employees (Conditions of Employment)

Mr. Henig: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to ensure that employees of British Waterways have the same rights as employees of British Railways in the event of retirement through ill health.

Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. But if my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind and will send me details I will ask the Board to look into it.

Mr. Henig: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The British Waterways Board has looked into it. But is my hon. Friend not appalled, as I was, to find that a constituent of mine who, after many years of good service with the British Waterways Board, when he became ill and fit only for light work, was dismissed and given an insulting pension of 7s. 6d. a week? Is it not about time that the nationalised industry did better than that?

Mr. Carmichael: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been discussions within


British Railways about the various staff pension schemes. It depends which scheme the members happen to have been involved in while working with the Railways or which particular Railways Board the Waterways Board came under. I agree that the pension is small, but it was agreed on a contributory basis.

British Standard Time Act

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Transport what evidence he has to date of a reduction in road accidents to schoolchildren resulting from the passage of the British Standard Time Act.

Mr. Marsh: No accident figures are available yet.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this outrageous Measure, imposed upon the people of Scotland and Northern England by the callousness of the Government, can be justified only by immediate evidence of a rapid reduction in the number of road accidents? As all the evidence points in the opposite direction, will the right hon. Gentleman go back to his colleagues and get them to remove this Measure from the Statute Book forthwith?

Mr. Marsh: There are many issues out of which one makes political capital. Accidents to children is not the most attractive of them. Unfortunately, a tragic number of people suffer accidents, and suffered them before there was a change to B.S.T. We are now seeing what the figures are. There is no justification for the sort of comment which the hon. Gentleman has made, nor is it particularly attractive that he should have raised it in that way.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House are extremely indignant that such a disgraceful effort should have been made from that side of the House to make political capital out of this most unfortunate situation, bearing in mind that the leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition, and many of their supporters behind them, supported the Bill for which the hon. Gentleman is now claiming the Government are responsible?

Mr. Marsh: We are looking at this problem because clearly we want to see

the effect of this Measure. One of the things which should be borne in mind in considering recent events is that it is highly dangerous for children of five and six years' old to be out on busy roads, whether B.S.T. is in operation or not.

Sir R. Cary: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, at least, that the House of Commons has made a mistake in introducing this Act, and therefore there should be an opportunity for the House to have an early look again at this problem?

Mr. Marsh: Accident figures take some time to process. I hope to have some early in the new year. On the last information that was provided on this from the Road Research Laboratory it was felt that, while more people would be travelling in the dark in the morning, a greater number would be travelling in daylight in the evening. It is this sort of thing which is difficult to assess.
The problem of accidents to children, is, unfortunately, one which has been with us for a long time. I repeat, without offence to anyone, that allowing small children to be free on busy roads, with or without changes in summer time, is a very dangerous practice indeed.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great need for more parental responsibility for children going to school in the morning, and coming home in the evening? Whether or not there are crossing keepers, parental responsibility should be accepted in this matter.

Mr. Marsh: That is the point that I was making.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will study what happens during the course of the next month or two before he decides, with his colleagues, to keep this absurd experiment in force for one year longer?

Mr. Marsh: I think that the House having decided upon this change, it would be absurd for the House to change its mind before it has any evidence upon which to do so. The present plan is for three years, but the Government are not rigidly wedded to that. We shall look carefully at the evidence during this winter, and if there is conclusive evidence that the experiment was a mistake,


obviously we shall take action. A lot of publicity has been given to some of the regrettable accidents, but, tragically enough, similar accidents could have happened—and did happen on a large scale—without any change in the time.

Mr. William Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend any statistics for previous years showing the number of accidents which occurred between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.?

Mr. Marsh: Not without notice.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have passed Question Time.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister chose to make a personal and unjustified attack on me of trying to make political capital out of this issue—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the point of order.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: —which neither I nor my hon. Friends have attempted to do at any time, may I be given an opportunity to set the record straight?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has attempted to set the record straight. It is a point of argument; not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Portsmouth (North-South Road)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has received from the Portsmouth City Council for a new north-south road passing through the Stamshaw area of Portsmouth; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Portsmouth City Council has proposed that the north-south road in the principal road programme should be re-aligned to follow a shore-line route north-west from Kingston Crescent to the ranges at Tipner. No decision has yet been made on the acceptance of this revised scheme.

Mr. Judd: This is at least the third proposed route for the road, and it is causing great anxiety to people in the

area. Will my hon. Friend expedite matters as much as possible?

Mr. Brown: No decision has yet been taken, but I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall expedite matters as much as I can.

South Coast Road

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the latest timetable for the completion of the South Coast trunk road.

Mr. Bob Brown: We are publishing this week draft schemes to fix the route of the South Coast road between Ower and Portsbridge. Other statutory procedures will follow as soon as possible, and, subject to their completion, it is hoped to start construction on this length in 1971–72. It is too early to say when the entire South Coast road will be completed.

Mr. Judd: Will my hon. Friend assure us that there will be full consultation with the local authorities concerned about the implications of this road and its connection with plans for developments in South Hampshire as a whole?

Mr. Brown: I give that assurance. Depending upon the objections received, we shall decide whether an inquiry is necessary.

Merseyside Area (Land Use/Transportation Study)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport when the findings of the Merseyside Area Land Use/Transportation Study will be published; and whether it will cover the estimated effect on investment and employment on Merseyside of the proposed Dee Estuary crossing.

Mr. Carmichael: The study is expected to be completed next April and the results made available shortly thereafter.
The study will give some guidance on the effects referred to, and this will be supplemented by the results of the Dee Estuary studies now in progress.

Mr. Tilney: Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that, once the study is published, the Government will get a move


on with this imaginative idea? Second, have the hon. Gentleman's experts gone to see what the Dutch are doing in turning their estuarial deserts into fresh-water lakes?

Mr. Carmichael: To make a decision like that one would have to wait for the results of the study, and this we shall do before deciding whether to proceed with haste or not.

Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend make clear that, until the results of the study are available, no major decision will be taken about future investment in transport developments on Merseyside?

Mr. Carmichael: There will be no major investment pending publication of the study.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister assure us that, should the study so recommend, the published proposals for the boundaries of the Merseyside P.T.A. will be amended, or consideration will be given to their amendment?

Mr. Carmichael: If the study does show that, consideration will certainly be given to amendment, but it is premature to make such a decision, before the study is published.

Channel Bridge

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport what recent studies have been carried out into the feasibility of a Channel Bridge.

Mr. Marsh: The British and French Governments decided in 1966 that if a fixed cross-Channel link were to be provided it should take the form of a rail tunnel. There has been no subsequent joint study of a Channel Bridge and there is no reason to suppose that one would be worth while.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what causes a considerable amount of concern is the quality of the decision in the light of technological progress? Since the original studies in the early 1960s things have changed very rapidly. If we are to spend hundreds of millions of pounds, it is up to the Ministry to make it clear that its proposal is based on the latest possible technological grounds.

Mr. Marsh: The disadvantages of a bridge compared with a tunnel, are, first, the length of time it would take to get international agreement, and, second, and even more important, the cost differential, which is so high that it is almost inconceivable that there could be benefits today. The 1963 Report costed the idea of a bridge in terms of the expected economic return discounted over 50 years at 7 per cent. The tunnel achieved more than twice the rate of return on the bridge. This means that there would have to be incredibly big differences to justify going back on this.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Apart from the cost of the bridge being almost double that of the tunnel, is not it true that fog and high winds would affect traffic on the bridge, making it unusable for many days in the year when the tunnel would be usable?

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend referred to technical developments, and this is the sort of field in which the protagonists of a bridge say that there are major changes. I still think that the hazards and difficulty would be very real. The sheer cost is so enormously higher that I do not think that there would be any justification for reworking the figures.

Channel Tunnel

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport what methods are proposed to safeguard the safety of passengers accompanying cars and travelling on the car carriers to be used in the Channel Tunnel Scheme now being considered by his Department.

Mr. Marsh: Safety in the tunnel would be a matter for the eventual public operating authority, under the general supervision of the British and French Governments; but preliminary plans have made careful provision for safety in the design, equipment and operation of the tunnel and of the trains passing through it, including car ferry trains.

Mrs. Short: Is the Minister aware that one of the main technical difficulties in building a tunnel is ventilation, and that the main ventilation would be provided by the trains driving a plug of air through the tunnel? Has he thought of what would happen if hundreds of people


were trapped because the train broke down and there was no ventilation? The tunnel will be 30-odd miles long.

Mr. Marsh: That has occurred to us. The studies which are taking place and will take place for the operating authority will include the whole question of emergency ventilation.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated cost of the Channel Tunnel scheme now under consideration by his Department.

Mr. Marsh: About £200 million at 1966 prices, including interest charges and very little of this would be public expenditure.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable body of opinion does not think that we shall get value for money by this expenditure? Is he further aware that the bridge to which he has referred, and which was considered six years ago, was the old-fashioned steel type bridge which is not built any more, and that what we need, if we are to have this link, is a combination of tunnel and bridge? Will he look into this again?

Mr. Marsh: A study was made of a possible bridge-tunnel-bridge link at the same time as the bridge study but again it was found that the costs would be very much higher than for a tunnel. This project will be financed mainly from the private sector and will come before this House with the full figures. I think that these two factors combined are a clear guarantee that the project will be economically viable.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of railway men think that the estimate of traffic that will be engendered by the tunnel is a considerable under-estimate since, quite naturally, a number of traffics which at present are not exported could be exported because of the cheapness of the tunnel transport as compared with other forms of transport?

Mr. Marsh: This is one of the problems. The hon. Gentleman's view is shared by a number of people and it conflicts directly with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. René e Short) and others.
This is why we are proposing to rework the figures and find out what the economics really are before going ahead with the project.

Mr. Deedes: What would be the estimated public cost over and above the £300 million needed for railway, road and other developments?

Mr. Marsh: The right hon. Gentleman may be referring to a figure quoted in The Times some time ago as an official figure. It was not an official figure. The estimated cost at 1966 prices is £200 million. The bulk will be private risk capital and the proportion of public capital will be very small.

Mr. Robert Howarth: What consideration has been given to the magnet effect of the tunnel on the South-East of England to the detriment of other regions?

Mr. Marsh: Consideration has been given to this aspect and it is one of the factors which will concern both sides of the House when the Bill comes before it. However, in my view, it is not likely that industrialists will resite factories to be nearer the tunnel and the Channel ports, which are already used on a very big scale, merely in order to save themselves a relatively short journey from other parts of Britain.

Tolls

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Transport what plans the Government has for extinguishing ancient tolls on bridges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT those sections of the British highways network where tolls are levied; and what are the criteria which determine which sections are to be toll bearing.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Transport what plans the Government have for eliminating bridge tolls on highways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Carmichael: I am circulating a list of tolls on trunk, principal and other classified roads in England in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Questions about tolls in Scotland and Wales are for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State. It is our policy that major new estuarial crossings which will provide exceptional


savings in cost and time to the users should be tolled. Highway authorities have powers to acquire private toll rights under Section 233 of the Highways Act, 1959, but we would expect them, before using these powers, to consider whether the benefit to traffic would justify the cost of acquisition.
My right hon. Friend has no plans to change these policies.

Mr. Marten: As neither of the major parties can ever find the money to pay compensation to extinguish the tolls, will the Minister seriously consider the proposition that the toll bridge owners be given a period of years—say, 15—after which tolls would be automatically extinguished on these private bridges?

Mr. Carmichael: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who will remember that I have taken the matter up at some length. Legislation would be required, and it would probably be rather complicated. I doubt whether it is the sort of thing Parliament would be willing to give time for at this stage.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Merseyside we are not so much worried about the ancient tolls as some new ones being introduced? I thought that it was always firmly intended that the Mersey Tunnel should cease to be toll-bearing after a specific period when the Government decided that the toll should not operate.

TOLLS ON TRUNK, PRINCIPAL AND OTHER CLASSIFIED ROADS IN ENGLAND


Name
Location
Route

Relevant Statute


Tolls in Public Ownership


Dartford-Purfleet, Thames Tunnel.
Kent/Essex
A282
…
Dartford Tunnel Act 1957


Mersey Tunnel
Birkenhead/Liverpool
A41
…
Mersey Tunnel Act 1925


Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge.
Middlesbrough/Co. Durham.
A178
…
Middlesbrough Corporation Act 1933.


Old Shoreham Bridge
West Sussex
A27
…
21 Geo. III. Cap. XXXV, 1780


Sandwich Bridge
Kent
A256
…
Sandwich Bridge Act 1755


Severn Bridge
Glos./Mon.
M4
…
Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965


Tamar Bridge, Plymouth
Devon/Cornwall
A38/A388
…
Tamar Bridge Act 1957


Tyne Tunnel
Jarrow/Howden, Northumberland.
A108
…
Tyne Tunnel Act 1960


Tolls in Private Ownership


Dunham Bridge
Lindsey, Lincs.
A57
…
Dunham Bridge Act 1830


Clifton Suspension Bridge
Bristol
B3129
…
Clifton Suspension Bridge Act 1861.


Rixton and Warburton Bridge
Cheshire
B5159
…
Rixton and Warburton Toll Bridge Act 1863.


Selby Bridge
Yorks, East and West Ridings.
A19
…
Selby Toll Bridge Act 1791


Shard Bridge
Kent
A588
…
Shard Bridge Act 1862


Swinford Bridge
Berks/Oxon.
A4141
…
Swinford Bridge Act 1766 and 1767


Whitchurch Bridge
Berks/Oxon.
B471
…



Whitney Bridge
Hertfordshire
A438
…
Whitney Bridge Act 1779 and 1796.

Mr. Carmichael: That was the decision, but when the additional tunnel was to be made it was decided that the toll should be continued in order to help finance it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend concentrate his attention on the tax-free ancient toll bridges? Is he aware that in the case of several in England not only are the incomes tax-free but when the owner dies they are death-duty-free? Will he undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the taxing of the incomes from such bridges?

Mr. Carmichael: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It has been brought to his attention, and he is fully aware of it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Scotland his party was elected to power on a pledge that these tolls were indefensible? Instead of abolishing them, the Government are increasing them in Scotland.

Mr. Carmichael: The Scottish question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the principle is that where there is a direct saving to the user, particularly on the estuaries, there should be tolls. This is the policy that the Ministry of Transport has followed for some time.

Following is the information:

Name
Location
Route
Relevant Statute


Aldwarke Bridge (South of Easingwold)
Yorks, N/W Riding
—
Aldwarke Bridge Act, 1772.


Batheaston Bridge
Somerset
—
—


Catford Bridge, Little Eccleston
Lancs.
—
—


Eling Bridge
Southampton
—
—

Motorways (Crash Barriers and Anti-Dazzle Screens)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport what is the policy of the Government on crash barriers and anti-dazzle screens in the central reservations of motorways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Department's policy on the use of crash barriers is set out in the Sixth Special Report from the Estimates Committee, 1967–68. At the present time, there is no case for a widespread use of anti-dazzle screens on road safety grounds.

Mr. Campbell: Are not central barriers very necessary to prevent bad multiple head-on collisions arising from a single skid, especially in winter conditions, both on motorways and on appropriate dual carriageways?

Mr. Brown: This is a debatable point, bearing in mind that, in a four-year observation of the Ml, the M10 and the M45, it was found that 11 per cent. of the accidents involved vehicles crossing the central reservation. Of these accidents, only one in five vehicles so crossing was in collision with a vehicle travelling along the opposite carriageway.

Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every other country it is the custom to erect these crash barriers and that they undoubtedly result in the saving of life, even on the figures the hon. Gentleman has just given?

Mr. Brown: I do not dispute that the saving of life would result, but clearly, with our limited resources, we have to spend money on road safety in the best possible way and there are other ways in which we can save many more lives.

M6 Motorway

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have occurred on the M6 motorway since it opened through vehicles crossing over the central reservation and striking

vehicles travelling in the opposite direction; how many casualties were caused; and what is the estimated total financial cost of these accidents.

Mr. Bob Brown: Complete figures are not readily available, but on 58 miles of M6 in Lancashire there were 15 accidents of this kind between 1st January, 1965, and 31st October, 1968. These resulted in 13 fatal, 18 serious and 23 slight casualties. The estimated total financial cost of these is £52,000.

Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about the severity of these accidents when they occur? Would not the cost of installing barriers be worth while because of the saving of resources and life that it would bring about?

Mr. Brown: In respect of the cost of accidents I have mentioned, the figure would work out at about £230 per mile per year, and even if the whole of that were saved it would nowhere near cover the cost of installing and maintaining crash barriers along the whole length of the road.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Why is the hon. Gentleman so complacent? People are being killed for lack of these barriers on motorways, not only on the M6 but on the M1? Will he look at this again and take positive steps?

Mr. Brown: We are not complacent. As I have already said, it has not been clearly established that this is the best way of spending limited money on road safety.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider amending the criteria which determine whether a motorway should have a central median crash barrier so that the busiest sections of the M6 would have such barriers installed at an early date; and what would be the estimated cost of installing a central barrier.

Mr. Bob Brown: No, Sir. The criteria are designed to secure the most effective


possible use of the resources available for this purpose over the country as a whole. It would not be right to make a special exception for M6. Any cost estimate would be hypothetical at this stage.

Mr. Howarth: I am aware of the present criteria which determine when a motorway will have a central barrier installed. Is my hon. Friend aware that the saving by erecting such a barrier in the immediate future would be considerable compared with the cost involved in delay by five years or so, when traffic will rise to the level required to meet the present criteria?

Mr. Brown: I take the point that it is cheaper to install a barrier at the time of building of a motorway but that still does not get us over the fact that, with limited resources, we must make the best possible use of our money.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Ministry should revise its crash barrier policy? Is he aware that multiple accidents are on the increase on the Ml, particularly at weekends, when the traffic is getting increasingly heavy?

Mr. Brown: Clearly we need to keep this policy under constant review on all busy stretches of highway. Certainly the M1 is one of the motorways steadily approaching saturation point.

Bridge Building Plans

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state which major bridges are to be built in the future; and which is to have priority.

Mr. Bob Brown: As the information is lengthly I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The economic benefit resulting from the construction or improvement of that section of road on which the bridge is situated determines the order in which it will be built.

Mr. Johnson: Does that list contain the most important bridge of all—the bridge over the Humber? Is my hon. Friend aware that this delay is holding up the long-term planning of Humberside not only in relation to the south bank but also to the much vaunted future conurbation with a population of 500,000, as well as the possibility of a medical school?

Mr. Brown: As a Tynesider, with a new Redheugh bridge figuring in the list, I can assure my hon. Friend that I heartily accept his concern. But he will realise that we have spent a lot of time on this in recent months and must clearly wait for the Humberside Study.

Mr. Webster: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to implement the pledge given by the previous Minister of Transport, not at Bassetlaw but at Hull, when she promised that there would be a Humber Bridge?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend said that a Humber Bridge would be built, and I have no reason to contradict that statement.

The information is as follows:

Future major bridges, as distinct from elevated roads and viaducts, costing more than £1 million in the Minister's motorway and trunk road programme and in the principal road programme are, in the order in which work is likely to start:

Motorway and Trunk Roads

A45 Chesterton Bridge, Cambridge (R. Cam).

M5 Avon Bridge.

A614 Clifton Bridge, Nottingham (R. Trent).

A5036 Bootle, Litherland Lift Bridge Diversion.

A19 Tees Bridge (Teesside Diversion).

M62 (Yorkshire) Ouse Bridge.

A18 Keadby Bridge (R. Trent).

Principal Roads

A6082 Redheugh Bridge (R. Tyne)

Middlesbrough, Tees—Newport Bridge

Kingston-upon-Hull (R. Hull).

Hull (Road Communications)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the improvement of East-West communications from the Ml and A1 to the port of Kingston upon Hull.

Mr. Bob Brown: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 11th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 9–10.]

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the M62 from Liverpool will reach the Al only by 1972? What are the Government's plans for extending this motorway to the port of Kingston upon Hull.

Mr. Brown: I do not propose to pursue the matter further than to say that


I fully explained the situation in the Adjournment debate on 15th October.

Mr. George Jeger: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Thome by-pass is the most important of the bottlenecks in these communications? Is anything being done to expedite that work?

Mr. Brown: I know my hon. Friend's great interest in the Thorne by-pass, but with the expected publication of the Humberside Study, about which, I understand, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will be making a statement at about Christmas, it would be wrong to comment on individual aspects.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the proposals for a Humber Bridge.

Mr. Marsh: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) on 25th November, 1968.—[Vol. 774, c. 39.]

Mr. Wall: In order to redeem his predecessor's promise, will not the Minister make certain that this bridge is in the Government's future plans while the Government are still sitting on that side of the House? Does he not realise that unless this bridge is built there is a grave danger of piecemeal development, which will only do harm to the whole of Humberside?

Mr. Marsh: That is why it is important to study the Humberside report and discuss the development of the entire area as a whole.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend as a southerner aware that next year will be the centenary of the beginning of discussions about the Humber Bridge? Is he further aware that the then Mr. Herbert Morrison gave permission for it in 1931 and that as late as 1959 the Conservative Minister gave permission to build this bridge? Cannot our Government begin before any of the events mooted by the hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) occur?

Mr. Marsh: In the many years during which the Government will be in office, it will be our intention on this, as on

other matters, to take the right decision. It is unfortunate that wrong decisions were taken in the past, but they were the responsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have to make up their minds. We are considering the study and the various factors in the area in order to produce the best possible solution.

Property, Greater London (Proposed Motorway Box)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport what consultation he is having with the Greater London Council on the subject of compensating house owners whose property depreciates in value as the result of the proposed motorway box.

Mr. Marsh: This subject forms part of the general study on compensation which is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My Department is also closely associated with this study, and the views expressed by the Greater London Council, both in writing and in oral discussion, are being taken into account.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the value of houses in Putney on either side of the line of the proposed motorway box is already declining and that the G.L.C. is refusing compensation to the owners? In view of the amount of housing to be displaced and the refusal to compensate, would it not be better to place the motorway box further out of London where the number of people disturbed and the number of people whose amenities would be damaged would be very much reduced?

Mr. Marsh: The motorway box is another and a somewhat complex subject. No decision has been finally taken by the Ministry, but it was precisely because of public anxiety about this problem, which has been with us for a very long time, that it was decided to go ahead with a general study of compensation in these circumstances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). However, is not the trouble the fact that the general compensation law does not allow compensation to be paid where there is great loss of amenity if no land is actually taken? As this applies particularly to the railways,


will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind closely to this difficulty?

Mr. Marsh: That is the point of the study. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complicated problem, because once we begin to compensate for loss of amenity it will be very difficult to draw a line.

Tibbets Corner, Putney Heath

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport what assurances he has obtained from the Greater London Council as to the adequate provision of pedestrian subways in the road improvements at Tibbets Corner, Putney Heath.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Greater London Council considers the present subway facilities to be adequate. It will nevertheless keep the situation under review.

Mr. Jenkins: Would my hon. Friend see that everything possible is done to help the people living on the William Willison and Argyll Estates, especially old people, children and the handicapped, whose amenities have deteriorated as a result of this development? Must these road improvements always take place at the cost of those living in the surrounding areas?

Mr. Brown: One of the unfortunate features of underpasses and so forth is that they involve pedestrians in longer walks to bus stops, shops, etc. It is a price which must be paid in the interests of greater road safety.

Trunk Roads (London)

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport what changes he proposes to make in his present policy regarding London's trunk roads.

Mr. Bob Brown: We have no proposals for changing the policy towards London's trunk roads as set out in the White Paper, Transport in London. [Cmnd. 3686.]

Mr. Atkins: Is it not true that the present plans for future London roads were based on figures of traffic growth which are now known to be greatly exaggerated? Would they not, therefore, require revision in future plans?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that my hon. Friend's premise is quite correct. It is fair to say that trunk roads in

London were generally drawn on the boundary of the old L.C.C. and, of course, now we have a number of roads which are under discussion with the new G.L.C.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend prepared to give high priority to safety on London's trunk roads, for example, where Western Avenue passes through Northolt and Greenford? Because of the considerably increased volume of traffic, the problems of crossing such a road, especially for school children from a housing estate to schools, are now becoming very serious?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has the interests of road safety at heart in every road scheme. I do not see any reason why London should have any priority in his thoughts.

London-Portsmouth Road

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving the main A3, London-Portsmouth road, to motorway standards.

Mr. Bob Brown: Decisions about a possible high-standard route by-passing the A3 from south of Petersfield to Guildford will be taken when the current feasibility study is complete. Meanwhile work has been completed, or is in progress, on the substantial improvement of certain sections of the A3, and other schemes are being prepared for the improvement of much of the remainder north of Guildford to a high standard.

Miss Quennell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the A3 is the only early numerical Ministry road which has not had a motorway made beside it? It is now seriously congested. In view of the financial circumstances of the country, would it not be far better to make rapid improvements to the existing road rather than constructing a motorway, involving a feasibility study and all the consequential costs?

Mr. Brown: It is not the intention to make a motorway. What we are doing is precisely what the hon. Lady suggests.

Traffic Signs

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue an instruction to highway authorities to review the


positioning and siting of street furniture, such as direction signs, bollards, etc., where these form impediments to the motorists' vision at road junctions.

Mr. Carmichael: The Department has given highway authorities advice on the need to avoid obstruction of visibility. We have seen no evidence that this is a widespread problem but we would gladly look into any particular case the hon. Lady has in mind.

Miss Quennell: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the most flourishing thickets of these bollards is outside this building in Parliament Square? They are all over the country, in practically any town through which the hon. Gentleman cares to motor. Surely he should do more than just send out a circular?

Mr. Carmichael: The Department issues a booklet entitled "Informatory Signs for Use on All-purpose Roads". The new Worboys signs being introduced in many parts of the country have forced another look at a number of existing signs and bollards. This may help solve the hon. Lady's problem. The maximum height for a bollard is 3 ft. 6 in., and it is intended that that height should be sufficient to prevent the blocking of visibility.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the existence of a rich dividend in childrens' lives which would follow an urgent issue of an illuminated school crossing patrol sign? Is there any possibility of the Government looking at this urgently and giving an answer before the winter is over?

Mr. Carmichael: That is quite a different question from this, which concerns street furniture.

Greater London (Christmas Parking Arrangements)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent his Department is in liaison with the Greater London Council regarding parking arrangements during the Christmas period.

Mr. Bob Brown: This is a matter for the Joint Traffic Executive for Greater London, comprising representatives of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan Police. The Department has been informed of the arrangements.

Mr. Dance: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of warning members of the public to check meters before they leave them? They can be extremely inaccurate, and motorists should be warned to see that the needle registers the exact time booked. Only recently, I was given a ticket—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions—not an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Dance: I was asking the hon. Gentleman to warn the public that meters can be wrong and that motorists should check them before leaving.

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. As I have said, this is a matter for the Joint Traffic Executive, which is well placed to deal with it.

Mersey (Wallasey-Liverpool Tunnel)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Transport what was the original estimate of the cost of building the twin-lane tunnel between Wallasey and Liverpool; by how much the latest estimate of the cost of the project exceeds that initial costing; and what investigation he proposes to undertake regarding the discrepancy.

Mr. Bob Brown: For the purposes of the Mersey Tunnel Act of 1965 the cost of the tunnel was estimated at £9·45 million. The current estimate is £9·63 million.
The estimated cost of the tunnel together with the associated roadworks, some of which will be carried out by Liverpool and Wallasey Councils as distinct from the tunnel authority, was £21·82 million in 1965 and is now about £25½ million.
We maintain close contact with the authorities concerned and are aware of the reasons for the increases, which we consider to be justified. No investigation is therefore necessary.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that figures which appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post last Friday emanating from the Tunnel Joint Committee showed an escalation of costs of £3 million between 1964 and October this year? Does he agree that an inquiry is called for into this kind of escalation of costs? Otherwise the public is bound to become cynical about exhortations to economies elsewhere.

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. As I have said, we are aware of the reasons for the increased costs and we are satisfied that an investigation is unnecessary.

Mr. Tilney: As the mole is held up owing to striking a major fault, which was foreseen or shown in geological maps of over 50 years ago, will that not add to the costs

Mr. Brown: With no personal detailed knowledge of the geology of the area, clearly I would need notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Towns (Barrier Crossings)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what approval he has given to British Railways to install barrier crossings in towns where children can be endangered.

Mr. Carmichael: Since 1964, 24 manned full-barriers and nine automatic half-barriers have been approved in urban areas. No accidents involving children and trains have been reported to the Ministry at any of them.

Mr. Digby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British Railways intends to install one of these barriers in Sherborne in my constituency at the bottom of a steep hill where there have been accidents before? Is he encouraging this policy?

Mr. Carmichael: I understand that this will be a manned double barrier and it will, therefore, be under observation by working railwaymen who will be able to see whether or not there are people on the line before the barrier comes down.

Mr. Webster: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures relating to accidents involving children at such barriers throughout the country?

Mr. Carmichael: I need notice of that question. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Public Highways (Level Crossings)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will initiate discussions with the British Railways Board with a view to the planned elimination of all level crossings on

public highways, starting with those situated in towns such as Goole.

Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. As a general proposition, other road improvements could give better value for money. But highway authorities may always negotiate with the Railways Board about individual crossings.

Mr. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Railways Board has declined on grounds of expense to consider eliminating level crossings? Is not this an opportunity for the Government to come to the aid of the Railways Board on the ground of the dangers of unmanned crossings and the delays which are caused even by manned crossings when lines cross towns, as in Goole?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend may not appreciate that there are approximately 2,400 crossings in Britain and that the cost would be about £250 million.

Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool Areas

Mr. Michael Heseltine: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now publish the detailed figures for the estimated losses in 1968 on British Railways commuter and suburban services in the Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool areas.

Mr. Carmichael: I regret that all the detailed information is not available, but we intend to publish early in the New Year details of the grants which we estimate will be necessary to meet the deficit for 1969 on unremunerative services in the Passenger Transport Authority areas.

Mr. Heseltine: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is deplorable that 12 months should have gone by since we first asked for this information in the P.T.A. areas? As the information has long since been published in respect of the fourth one, Newcastle, it is quite intolerable that we cannot have it for the other three.

Mr. Carmichael: Newcastle was a simpler case. Only two services were affected in the Newcastle and Tyneside area and, when the figures were known, they were made public. There are many more services in the other areas. We hope that in 1969 the claims of the British Railways Board for grant will be available, and these will be made known to the P.T.A.s and the public.

Mr. Brooks: In preparing his statistics, would my hon. Friend agree that he might also attempt to quantify the social advantages of extending lines in areas such as Merseyside, as well as reducing them?

Mr. Carmichael: Once figures have been published, this will be a matter for the P.T.A. in the area concerned which will be responsible for organising transport in its area.

Football Special Trains (Damage)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport how many football special trains were run by British Railways in the latest annual period for which figures are available; how many of these trains suffered from vandalism; and what was the cost of the damage.

Mr. Marsh: The Railways Board tell me that during the 12-month period to 30th June, 1968, 19 of the 866 football specials they ran were damaged by vandals. Repairs cost £1,648 in all. The cost of delays to passengers and the time rolling stock was out of action for repairs are not quantifiable.

Mr. Taylor: Are these not alarming figures? Does the Minister know that in a recent case vandals responsible for £800 worth of damage were fined only £5 each? Is he aware that the Government would have the general support of the public if they provided for more effective penalties to deal with recent orgies of vandalism?

Mr. Marsh: The question of penalties and the penalties awarded is not a matter for me; it is for the courts. I think this is a regrettable trend, though it should be borne in mind that these figures show that just over 2 per cent. of the special football trains were damaged. The important thing is that this is a matter of management for the Railways Board, and it prefers to run special trains rather than risk this sort of hooliganism and vandalism on ordinary services.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the Minister say whether those figures include damage done to ordinary trains on which football fans have travelled?

Mr. Marsh: No. These are purely football specials

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is not that rather a high number of goals scored by the Vandals? Might it not be possible to try some form of additional deposit on tickets for football specials?

Mr. Marsh: This is a matter for the management of British Railways, but I have no doubt that it will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

South-East Transport Users' Consultative Committee

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Transport if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the names of members of the South-East Transport Users' Consultative Committee, stating in each case by whom they were appointed and identifying those who are serving in the capacity of representatives of the railway passengers.

Mr. Carmichael: I am circulating the list of names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In accordance with Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, my right hon. Friend's predecessor appointed all the Members of this Committee, the Chairman and two members without consultation and the other members after consultation with the bodies referred to in the list. Members of these Committees are regarded as representatives of transport users at large and not of the bodies who nominate them or of any specific section of users.

Mr. Lubbock: If they they are regarded as representative of transport users at large, is it not striking that only one of the 23 members of the South-East Transport Users' Consultative Committee is the possessor of a season ticket and only three of them travel on the railways?

Mr. Carmichael: I think that my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have gone to great lengths to get representatives from organisations in the area. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the list of bodies consulted, as required by Section 56 (2) of the Transport Act, he will see a very representative group of people in the area. All the people who travel do not hold season tickets.

The information is as follows:

TRANSPORT USERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE SOUTH EAST

Bodies consulted as required by section 56 (2) of the Transport Act 1962

Chairman

Mr. P. W. Milligan.

Members

Alderman C. W. Armstrong, J.P., Association of Municipal Corporations.
Councillor Brig. J. B. Sandberg, C.B.E., County Councils Association.
Mr. J. F. Symonds, Central Council for the Disabled.
Councillor P. E. P. Gladwin, D.S.C., LP., Urban District Councils Association.
Councillor E. G. Feben, Rural District Councils Association.
Mr. C. W. Burton, Mr. G. H. Parks. M.B.E., Trades Union Congress.
Mr. E. E. Ralfs, C.A., National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations.
Mr. E. J. Peacock, Confederation of British Industry.
Councillor J. D. Rutland, British Travel Association.
Mr. F. Scammell. The Working Men's Club and Institute Union Ltd.
Alderman R. J. Davie, J.P., Parliamentary Committee Co-operative Union Ltd.
Miss M. H. Barnes, M.B.E., J.P., Women's Royal Voluntary Service.
Major G. Knight, M.C., The National Farmers Union.
Mr. J. Fowles, Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
Mrs. Unsworth White, National Federation of Women's Institutes
Mr. W. R. Myers, M.Sc., A.Inst.P., Ramblers Association.
Mrs. Aileen Spiller, J.P., National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations.
Rev. J. Martin, National Association of Parish Councils.
Mr. F. Hickman, Mr. C. Byford, O.B.E., LP.. M.Inst.T.

Public Roads (Unmanned Crossings)

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the implementation of the recommendations for alterations in level crossings following the report of the tribunal on the Hixon accident, in so far as they affect types of level crossing other than automatic half-barrier crossings.

Mr. Marsh: The recommendations in the Hixon report related specifically to automatic half-barrier crossings and the immediate priority is to implement them for these crossings. But we are also considering how the recommendations might affect other unmanned crossings on public roads.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable public disquiet about the somewhat slap-happy operation of level crossings in this country? The Hixon disaster has highlighted these fears. Not only do we require a more uniform method of operating level crossings for public safety,

but also far keener operation of safety devices for protecting fast-moving trains on the electrified system against a repetition of what happened at Hixon.

Mr. Marsh: While not disagreeing with some of my hon. Friend's comments, one must keep clearly in mind that Hixon was dealing with an automatic half-barrier crossing, and specifically with that. To add to some of my hon. Friend's comments, we could also do with a little more attention by users of these crossings to the safety regulations.

Cambridge-St. Ives Line

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport why he has not made a grant under Section 39 (1) of the Transport Act, 1968, to British Railways to enable them to keep open the railway line from Cambridge to St. Ives, in view of the hardship that many people, including students, will suffer when this service is closed to passenger traffic.

Mr. Carmichael: No final decision can be taken on the future of this passenger service until the Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee has reported to my right hon. Friend on any hardship that might be caused by its withdrawal.

Sir D. Renton: As the Minister will have the last word, will he bear in mind that St. Ives is a rapidly growing place and that large and increasing numbers of people go from St. Ives to Cambridge for employment, hospital visits, education, shopping and many other purposes? Is that not a strong reason for making a special grant in this case?

Mr. Carmichael: All these will be reasons and factors taken into account by my right hon. Friend when he gives his decision. He will consult all the bodies and Government Departments in the area which are likely to be affected by any decision he makes,

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS

Nationalisation (White Paper)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport when he now proposes to issue a White Paper upon nationalisation of the British ports; and whether he will now issue a Green Paper instead.

Mr. Marsh: I hope to publish a White Paper shortly. A Green Paper would not be appropriate since there has already been extensive consultation on the basis of a working document; this, of course, does not preclude further consultation when the Government's proposals are published.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some on the benches behind him who feel that his enthusiasm for nationalisation may be waning? Will he deal with that and tell us what the Government's intentions are?

Mr. Marsh: The Government's intentions are outlined in a number of statements which I have made from this Box, and they are to reorganise the ports industry. My enthusiasm for nationalisation is as always and remains unabated.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his intention to introduce a Bill for this reorganisation in this Session?

Mr. Marsh: Not in this Session. I understand that time cannot be found for it. It is my intention to introduce a White Paper on the subject in the very near future.

Mr. Leadbitter: As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House that there is no likelihood of legislation this Session, what is the haste about a White Paper? Can we not have a Green Paper so that there can be full discussion and so that our worries about the industry can be dissipated, for there seems to have been a shift in ports policy during the past 12 months?

Mr. Marsh: The urgency arises because there has been uncertainty about this industry for a long time and it ought to be cleared up at the earliest opportunity. There have been extensive consultations. I have no doubt that once the White Paper is published my hon. Friends will find plenty of opportunity to make their comments.

CURRENCY SPECULATION (WRITTEN ANSWERS)

Sir F. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order of which I have given you a little prior notice? It re-

lates to the treatment of Written Questions which I tabled about currency speculation by United Kingdom citizens.
On 2nd December, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
how many successful prosecutions for currency speculation by United Kingdom citizens or institutions authorised to operate in foreign exchange markets took place during the last four years.
The Minister of State at the Treasury chose to answer my Question which he coupled with a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). My hon. Friend asked a much more generalised Question. The hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was:
I regret this information is not readily available and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 345–6.]
On 5th December, I was able to ask a Question identical in every respect except that I altered the period to the last 10 and four years. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what estimate he has made of the cost of public funds of ascertaining the number of successful prosecutions of currency speculation by United Kingdom citizens on institutions authorised to operate in foreign exchange markets during the last 10 and four years … 
To that Question I received, as one would expect, a prompt and courteous Answer from the Financial Secretary, who said:
No authorised dealers have ever been prosecuted under the Exchange Control Act in connection with operations in foreign currencies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 551.]
In other words, the reply by the Minister of State that the answer was not available and would cost a disproportionate amount of money to obtain was dropped only three days later when another Minister answered the same Question. If I had not been persistent, a serious slur would have remained upon a comparatively limited number of institutions and citizens.
The question on which I seek help is simply this: if, at their own discretion, Ministers group Questions about different aspects of a subject, there is no protection for back benchers who want to probe. Any Minister can do this at any time by grouping Questions in such a way as to enable him to give an evasive reply. If you cannot help


me today, Sir, may I request that you look into the question of Ministers lumping Questions together?

Mr. Taverne: rose —

Mr. Speaker: I think that I had better rule on that point of order.
I think that it would be regrettable if hon. Members frequently raised as points of order their dissatisfaction with Answers given by Ministers. I see, however, some substance in what the hon. Member is complaining about. One Minister told the hon. Member that it would be difficult to obtain the information while another Minister apparently said that he was able to provide it. Nevertheless, this inconsistency between Ministers is not a unique feature of this or any other Government. The dissatisfaction which hon. Members feel at Answers given by Ministers of any Government is something which runs right through history.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): Further to that point of order. Since the hon. Member's Question to me on Monday was a wide one, referring to citizens and institutions in general, and was correctly and reasonably answered, and since it was only subsequently, as a result of further Questions asked, including a different one, that it became clear that the hon. Member had in mind a much narrower point than that covered by his previous Question, and since both my Answer and that of my hon. Friend, which was not to the actual Question, but to a part of it only, were reasonable and not inconsistent, would it not be proper for the hon. Member to withdraw his allegations, which are totally unjustified?

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has just taken place is a complete justification of what I have said, namely, that it would be regrettable if we tried often to pursue by points of order hon. Members' dis-

satisfaction with the speeches of other hon. Members or the replies of Ministers to Questions.

Mr. Maudling: Is not there a further point here, Mr. Speaker? In the case of an Oral Question, objection may be taken to the grouping of Questions which could lead to misunderstanding, but in the case of a Written Question objection cannot be taken, and, therefore, misunderstanding may arise.

Mr. Speaker: There is some substance in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It probably would be a better practice—indeed, it is the almost universal practice—not to group Written Questions. If there is a grouping of Oral Questions hon. Members have an opportunity of reacting in the proper way.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have pursued this matter for quite a time.

Sir F. Bennett: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Sir Frederic Bennett.

Sir F. Bennett: I was called upon to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, otherwise I should not have troubled to rise. I will not withdraw. Let hon. Members read the two OFFICIAL REPORTS for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House was aware that the hon. Member was not prepared to withdraw.

GENOCIDE BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Fitch.]

And not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 A (Second Reading committees).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATE SUPPORT GRANT)

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1968, dated 27th November 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
House of Commons Paper No. 24 explains the considerations leading to the provisions of the Order.
This is the second Rate Support Grant Order to be made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act, 1966. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I recall the general structure of the grant arrangements which were initiated under that Act. The Rate Support Grant Orders fix the Exchequer contribution to local authority revenue expenditure for the two forthcoming financial years. They are based upon figures of estimated expenditure adopted by the Minister following consultation with the local authority associations and upon the basis of estimates provided by the local authorities. To this estimated expenditure is then applied the percentage of grants to be adopted for the year in question, and the result is the aggregate of the Exchequer contribution. From this Exchequer contribution are deducted the estimated specific revenue grants for the period and the sum remaining is the rate support grant.
That grant, in turn, is divided into three elements—the domestic element, which goes to abate domestic rate levels; the resources element, which is a grant to authorities with below average rateable resources, and the needs element—much the largest of the three—which takes the place of the general grant under the Local Government Act, 1958. This is set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Report.
The general economic background against which the decisions on the Order have been taken is the strategy set out in the White Paper of 16th January, Cmnd. 3515, and in the Budget speech, that is, to divert a higher proportion of national production for the benefit of the balance of payments and for the investment necessary to support the competitive strength of the economy.
The importance of local authority expenditure in this strategy is clear. Local authority capital and revenue expenditure combined represent well over a quarter of all public expenditure and over a seventh of the gross national product. Local authority revenue expenditure alone, with which rate support grant is concerned, amounts to well over a sixth of all public expenditure and just over a tenth of the gross national product. Moreover, these proportions are not static. Local authority expenditure has for some time been rising by 6 per cent. per annum or more in real terms, whereas the growth of the economy has been about 3 per cent. per annum. Over the past seven years when the gross national product has grown by 50 per cent., total local authority expenditure has grown by over 120 per cent. A gap of this size clearly cannot continue indefinitely.
It appears from the comments in some newspapers that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the phrase" real terms". Perhaps I may explain it. If in one year an authority employs 100 staff at an average wage of £1,000, the cost will be £100,000. If there is a wage increase of 3 per cent. in the next year the 100 staff will cost £103,000, but this is an increase in costs and not an increase in real terms. If, in the second year, however, the authority employs 103 staff with the higher wages this represents a 3 per cent. increase in real terms, but the cost will be £106,090—an increase in cash expenditure of over 6 per cent.
The House will recall that the White Paper, Cmnd. 3515, in paragraph 51, indicated that in the autumn of this year the Government would propose rate support grant on the basis of an increase in local government revenue expenditure not exceeding about 3 per cent. in real terms above the figure originally agreed for 1968–69. At the same time, local authorities were asked to make all possible economies in 1968–69, and to absorb price increases. To the extent that local authorities reduce their expenditure in real terms in 1968–69 below what was previously planned, the increase in 1969–70 over 1968–69 will be more than 3 per cent.
The Government, in January, indicated savings of £35 million which could be made this year, and local authorities should have found others. If the total


savings in real terms in 1968–69 were about £40 million, then the increases in real terms between this financial year and the expenditure envisaged in 1969–70 will be nearer 4½ per cent. than 3 per cent.
For 1970–71 the Order provides for an increase of 5 per cent. Thus, the annual increases in real terms over the five years from 1965–66 to 1970–71 would be 6¾ per cent., 5¾ per cent., 4 per cent., 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. On this basis the growth envisaged for 1969–70 and 1970–71 at 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. should be a little below the growth in earlier years, but it is still substantial. Moreover, it must be seen in the context that public expenditure as a whole, which includes this growth, will rise by only 1 per cent. between 1968–69 and 1969–70.
In the debate exactly two weeks ago the Opposition were calling for further reductions in public expenditure. I shall wait with interest to hear whether they are now going to say that these figures of growth for local authorities are too high. If so, would they reduce the Government grant, thus creating further difficulties for councils, or would they impose a heavier burden on householders by reducing the subsidy for the domestic ratepayer? Characteristically, I suspect, the Opposition are blowing hot and cold at the same time.
It is an irresponsible way of dealing with a matter of such great importance to the general economy, to the support of local government and to the interests of the ratepayers in general. It certainly seems to make a nonsense of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, at Preston on Saturday, When he appeared to be preaching sound financial administration from a Conservative Government.
During the negotiation on the rate support grant, it was put to me that the notice given to local authorities of the fact that the Government did not contemplate making an increase Order for 1967–68 was too short to permit them to take the measures necessary to reduce expenditure during that year sufficiently to off-set the loss of grant income.
I considered this point very carefully and with some sympathy, but, in present economic conditions, and bearing in mind the continuing need for a close

watch on the movement of public expenditure, I came to the conclusion, which I have communicated to the local authority associations, that retrospection in this way would not be justifiable—

Mr. John M. Temple: The right hon. Gentleman expresses his regret at not bringing in supplementary grant, but how, in terms of public expenditure, would it have made the slightest difference, since the money has already been spent?

Mr. Greenwood: It is really for the local authority associations to say how they would have dealt with it, but I imagine that it would have gone to replenish reserves which have been run down.
As to 1968–69 the January White Paper made clear that the local authorities were expected to absorb price increases. The local authorities have represented to me that the rise in prices with which they will be faced is likely, in their view, to add perhaps as much as £100 million to their expenditure this year.
While I do not necessarily accept this figure, I am bound to point out that the estimate for their expenditure on rate support grant services, used for fixing the level of rates for the present year, allows about £70 million above the previously agreed figure for rate support grant relevant expenditure for 1968–69. If we then allow for the savings in real terms on that figure, which I have already suggested ought to be at least £40 million, the rates already levied should cover cost increases of over £100 million. Even so, the average increase in the rates was 6d., or only 1d. increase for domestic ratepapers. In all the circumstances, the Government reaffirm their decision that no increase Order should be made for 1968–69.
There have been statements that it will be impossible for this or that authority to absorb recent and future cost increases within the rate support grant figures now proposed for 1969–70. Under the normal procedure, such increases for that year, to the extent that they arise after the middle of November, would fall to be dealt with by an increase order in due course.
I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Order before the House. Before determining the total Exchquer assistance to local authorities, I am required by the Act to consider three sets of factors. The first is the current level of prices, costs and remuneration, and the latest available information as to the rate of relevant expenditure. For this purpose relevant expenditure means all rate fund expenditure except contributions to housing revenue accounts and trading accounts.
Secondly, I must have regard to any possible fluctuation in the demand for services resulting from circumstances prevailing generally in England and Wales, and not under the control of local authorities. Thirdly, I must take into consideration the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic considerations, it is reasonable to develop them.
On the basis of returns collected from local authorities and of other estimates, made in terms of June, 1968 prices, the total forecast expenditure for 1969–70 was £3,057 million and for 1970–71 £3,234 million: for 1968–69 the estimate was £2,864 million. On a constant price basis, that is, in real terms, the forecast expenditure for 1969–70 and 1970–71 showed increases over 1967–68 of about 13·4 per cent. and 19·9 per cent. respectively; in other words, taking the period 1967–68 to 1970–71 as a whole, the forecasts envisaged increases of 6½ per cent. or more each year.
As I have already said, the Government's proposals are that, for 1969–70, there should be a real increase of about 4½ per cent., depending on the economies that are made in real terms this year; and for 1970–71, 5 per cent. The Government's purpose in the negotiations—and I am very grateful to the local authority associations and the Greater London Council for their helpful cooperation in the discussions—has been to ensure that the experience and judgment of the local authority associations and of the Government Departments has been combined to produce what I believe to be reliable forecasts of expenditure, service by service.
The local authorities did not, by any means, entirely agree with the views of Ministers on what the outcome in expen-

diture terms of present policies would be. I have today received a letter from the Chairman of the Association of Municipal Corporations on this subject. The Association has said throughout that there was a strong case for increases, that is to say, beyond the amounts being finally proposed by the Government, of £15 million in each year for education and £15 million for highways and another £5 million for other services, and that, at the very least, there should be increases overall of about £23 million and £25 million in the two years. In other words, it was seeking overall rates of growth of about 5½ per cent. and 6 per cent. for the two years.
The main issues in the discussions related to the rate of growth of education expenditure and to the restricted level for highways expenditure. There are notes on these matters in the House of Commons Report where the Government set out the priorities which have guided them on these and the other services. The House will see that the Report indicates that the Government's general conclusion is that the broad pattern of expenditure is appropriate to the requirements of the circumstances and sufficient for the policies to be pursued.
To summarise very briefly Section B, which is the appropriate—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that education is covered in the House of Commons Paper No. 24. Does he realise that there is no reference in the relevant paragraph to the reorganisation of secondary education and the elimination of the selective principle? Why is that?

Mr. Greenwood: That is a question of building, which is capital expenditure, and the rate support grant refers only to revenue expenditure.

Mr. Temple: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in regard to the loan charges, that they fall upon the rate support grants, and that they are jumping up at an astronomical rate?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry. Perhaps I oversimplified. This, of course, applies in other fields of expenditure as well. But if hon. Gentlemen will make their points on education during the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and


Science, will deal with them when she replies.
I should like to summarise now the broad priorities which the Government have pursued in Section B of the Report—

Sir Edward Boyle: I apologise for pursuing this, but we can hardly let it rest, because the right hon. Lady who is to reply to the debate said in a recent education debate that no authority, as she claimed, that had a sound reorganisation plan was being held up for lack of building work. Surely, that being so, the current expenditure consequential—not least loan charges, but a number of other items as well—should have been taken into account by the Government when fixing their contribution through the rate support grant.

Mr. Greenwood: We are concerned here only with the loan charges. I have no reason to believe that they are not covered by the arrangements that have been made.
To continue with the summary of what the Government have laid down, we emphasise that the expenditure envisaged allows in full for increases in the number of pupils in primary and secondary schools, and for the likely growth of further and higher education, and takes account of the expected increase in the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools. We provide for continuing expansion in the local health and welfare services, particularly in meeting the needs of the elderly and the physically or mentally handicapped.
Reasonable growth in the strength of the police forces, and necessary expansion of the fire services is provided for. Provision is also made for rising expenditure in the sphere of child care. So far as spending on highways is concerned, the level of expenditure reflects the sharp cuts requested by the Government in January. Allowance has been made for the growth of expenditure on essential sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, and for limited development of the refuse disposal service.
We stress in the Report the need to keep in check the total size of the work force. This will present no serious problems if we recognise the scope which exists for securing increased productivity

in local government and take full advantage of it. Some very useful work has already been done in that direction.
For example, about 500 incentive bonus schemes based on approved work study techniques have been introduced in local government in the past two years. These incentive schemes can produce impressive results. Many of them result in a productivity gain of 60 per cent. or even more—I have heard of cases where it has exceeded 100 per cent. The resultant savings are, in effect, shared between the workers, who earn substantial bonuses, and the ratepayers, who benefit from reduced staff costs.
I have every hope that we shall now see a rapid expansion of properly worked out incentive bonus schemes. The two sides of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services have recently issued a circular asking the local authorities to prepare plans for their introduction. The Local Authorities management Services and Computer Committee, set up by local authority associations to encourage the use of modern management techniques in local government, is I know, treating the extension of incentive bonus schemes among manual workers as a first priority. I hope that all local authorities will give warm support to these initiatives, because they offer opportunities for substantial savings in total staff costs and at the same time substantial bonuses for the workers concerned.
Let me stress the content of the Order. The aggregate expenditure to be allowed for at November, 1968 prices is £2,976 million in 1969–70, and £3,128 million in 1970–71.
Turning now to the grant, the Government are proposing that, following the percentages of 54 per cent. in 1967–68 and 55 per cent. in 1968–69, the Government's contribution for the two years of the forthcoming grant period should continue the progression and should be 56 per cent. in 1969–70 and 57 per cent. in 1970–71. Thus, the Government are not only allowing for a substantial growth in expenditure in real terms—they are also increasing the share of the expenditure that they will bear, and giving valuable protection to householders.
With these percentages of 56 per cent and 57 per cent. the aggregate Exchequer


grants become. £1,666 million for 1969–70 and £1,783 million for 1970–71, or £130 million and £247 million respectively above the grants being paid this year. Not even the Opposition can turn increases of that magnitude into cuts, however hard the Conservative Central Office may try. The estimated specific grants are being taken as £138 million and £150 million respectively. The remaining £1,528 million and £1,633 million are devoted to the rate support grant.
For the domestic element, which goes to reduce the rate burden on householders, the Government are continuing the progression from 5d. in 1968–69, 10d. in this current year, to 1s. 3d. in 1969–70 and 1s. 8d. in 1970–71. The sums involved here are £73 million and £100 million. With increases in the level of local authority expenditure some increase in total rates is inevitable, but the Government are anxious to protect householders as much as possible.
Broadly speaking, during the present financial year two out of three councils were able to either reduce, or keep steady or increase their domestic rate by no more than 3d.; only one in three found it necessary to increase the domestic rate by more than that. That is remarkable evidence of the success of our policy of making the rating system fairer to householders.
Before the new grant system was introduced in 1967 rates had been rising about 10d. a year. Over the past two years they have risen on average 11d. in total and, because of the domestic element which was originally intended to halve the impact of rate rises on the domestic ratepayer, domestic rates have risen on average by only 1d. The increased domestic element now proposed for the next two years will substantially protect the householder against the burden of increased local authority expenditure.
The resources element is calculated to be the sum required to meet the amounts payable to authorities with rateable resources below the national average per head if local authorities incur expenditure equal in amount to the totals of relevant expenditure. The sums concerned are £225 million and £236 million, and are of very great importance to local authorities in less prosperous areas. The needs

element, at £1,230 million and £1,297 million respectively for the two years, is the sum remaining.
We have taken the Order as an opportunity to consider whether any changes should be made at this time in the formula for the distribution of the needs element. As the Report indicates in paragraph 32, I have decided, with the agreement of the local authority associations, that on this occasion, and with due regard to the fact that if changes were made now further alterations could not be made for another four years, I should not be justified in proposing amendment.
However, one change has been made, though not in the formula itself. The relative values of the education units are being brought up to date with the latest available figures of costs, and regulations will shortly be presented to bring this into effect.
The Order thus allows for increases in real terms in local authority revenue expenditure of about 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. and provides for Exchequer grant on these levels of expenditure at the increased percentages of 56 and 57. There is, therefore, no shadow of truth in the allegations in some newspapers—made, I hope, only through ignorance—that the Government are cutting either the expenditure or the grant.
The Opposition must make up their mind. Do they wish to see a steady development of local authority services, as rapid as is consistent with our economic progress? Or do they wish to see an expansion of local authority expenditure, regardless of its impact on the national economy or on the interests or the ratepayers? The blank cheque the Opposition are demanding is inconsistent with the niggardliness of their attitude to local authorities when they were the Government. It is also a cheque which, if they became the Government again, they would be unable to meet.
I believe that financial prudence and political honour alike require us to act as the Government are acting. While keeping public expenditure under careful control we are sanctioning an essential increase in local government spending over the next two years. As a Government, we are meeting a higher proportion of that higher spending; and we are


giving householders a rate subsidy of 1s. 3d. in the £ next year and 1s. 8d. the following year.
This is a reasonable, just and far-sighted way of proceeding, and I commend the Order to the House.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The tone of the Minister's speech was, alas, typical of speeches made by Ministers under this Administration when introducing unpopular or difficult measures. At the time of devaluation the people were told that that step would not be hard on them. Whenever unpleasant Budgets have been introduced, Government spokesmen have gone out of their way to explain that tough economic measures would not have an adverse effect on the people.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech today was absolutely in that tradition. He said, in effect, "We will take the measures necessary in the interests of the economy, but they will not harm anybody; all the services will continue to be improved and local authorities will not have to put up the rates." In other words, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was not a hard measure which was needed to meet a difficult economic situation, but a generous grant to local authorities.
While that was the theme of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the same theme has constantly run through speeches made by Ministers of the Government, and this has discredited this Administration. They are never willing to say, "The economic situation is bad and, therefore, many of the services which we cherish dearly must be cut. There will be difficulties for local authorities and it will be a tough year." Ministers of this Government never have the guts or courage to say that. They go out of their way to attempt to illustrate that their measures will have no adverse effects on the people.
I have never heard a more classic example of this than the Minister's speech today. The right hon. Gentleman knows, from the information available to him, that this Order will mean a deterioration of many local authority services. Indeed, he said exactly that in a circular which he sent to local authorities at the time of the publication of the

January White Paper, which stated that the Government accepted that economies on the scale proposed involved a slower growth in many services, and in some cases a temporary lapse in standards. We have heard nothing today about a temporary lapse in standards or a failure to improve basic services. We have only heard about the generosity of the Order.
The right hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friends and I what we would do. I assure him that if, in our judgment, the economic situation was very bad—for example, as bad as we were told it was a fortnight ago—then, obviously, we would have to be as tough as this and perhaps even tougher; but we would tell the country precisely what the position was and what we were doing. However, if the economic situation was as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was last Saturday, then we would probably be more generous. It is difficult to answer this sort of question when a Government like the present one are in power. Only last Sunday we were told in newspaper headlines that the Chancellor was optimistic about the whole economic situation.
Presuming that the economic situation is serious and that we are to have enormous adverse balance of payments this year, then the Government, who have got the economy into this condition, must take tough, hard measures and—however much they deplore doing things against their political beliefs and faiths—they must also make the position clear. But today the Minister failed to have the courage to explain the position. Instead, he tried to pretend that he was making a generous grant which would do no basic harm to either the services or the rates.
In fact, much harm will be done. The Order will mean a considerable deterioration of some services. It will also perhaps mean substantial increases in rates. Some cities have already estimated that they may, as a result of the Order, have to increase their rates by as much as 2s. or even 2s. 6d. in the £. This is bound to have a serious effect on education and the welfare services.
The whole tone of the White Paper explaining the Order gave the impression that no great harm would be done. Even the Minister's Press hand-out on the day


when the White Paper was announced was headed:
Rate relief in 1969–70 and 1970–71.
The first paragraph told us:
Exchequer rate relief for domestic ratepayers will be increased by 5d. to 1s. 3d. in the £ for 1969–70 and by a further 5d. to 1s. 8d. in the £ in 1970–71.
The whole atmosphere created by the Press handout was that the Order would be good for domestic ratepayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cry "Hear, hear", yet they know, from the figures supplied to them by local authorities, that the grant to which they have agreed will mean either a severe cut in some basic services or an increase in the rates. They have not, however, had the courage to say which basic services they would prefer to see cut to maintain the rates at their present levels.
In the same way, the White Paper skated over all these difficulties. If important talks are going on—and we gather that they are going on with the world's economic leaders—then I guarantee that that White Paper would not be circulated at the talks to illustrate the sort of tough measures which the Government are taking to cure the ills of our economy. Instead, the White Paper was designed to pretend that nothing was being done to cut back on public expenditure. The Government have been completely and utterly two-faced on this subject.
Looking at the history of the rate support grant and the background to this matter, it is interesting to note the attitude of the Labour Administration from the time they came to power. At first, we had strong promises that the rates would be reduced. The main promise in the 1964 manifesto was that the cost of teachers' salaries would be transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. This the Government have not done.
The next classic promise affecting this grant concerned the whole question of the cost of finance to local authorities. It was the Prime Minister who, speaking at a Parliamentary Press Gallery luncheon and commenting that local councils were being hampered by high interest rates, said:
Since our general economic policy rejects the over-reliance on monetary weapons as

the means of regulating the economy, interest rates will return to a very reasonable level.
When he made that speech Bank Rate was 4 per cent. Today, it is nearly 7 per cent. and in the interim it has been higher.
After those promises—about interest rates being reduced and the cost of teachers' salaries being transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer—one would imagine that by now the burden on the ratepayer would be considerably less. Quite the opposite has occurred. During the first two years of office of the Labour Party rates went up by about 11 per cent. in each year. Then we had the National Plan, which promised a basic growth in all our social services and a considerable growth in expenditure on education.
There followed the rate support grant and, as the Minister said, this is the second Order affecting that grant. It is interesting to note that the first Order was introduced in exactly the same atmosphere as this. There was a political and economic crisis facing the Government. It is also interesting to note how, at that time, the Government appealed to local authorities to reduce expenditure. The Government explained that it was a temporary measure.
In December, 1966 the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—speaking in a debate precisely like this one—said:
But if the Government are doing their job with any kind of responsibility, they have to have regard to economic conditions, and if the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) does not know that we are in the middle of a desperate economic crisis, then everybody else does.
He went on:
It is not cured, but we have gone a very long way indeed on the road to curing it. The effect of the Government's policy on exports has been referred to as well. Exports last month were at an all-time high—higher than they had been in the previous month. The balance of payments situation has been steadily improving over the last few months. This is not the record of a Government who have faltered or failed to stand up to the economic crisis. It is the record of the Government who have tackled that crisis with determination—determination to do the job even at the risk of losing some popularity.
Thus, local authorities were told—and told by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, remember—how much he regretted the circumstances in


which the Order was being introduced and the amounts involved in it.
Also in that debate, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
I know that these savings will not be easily achieved. They will call for more than a strict attention to economy, necessary though that is. They are bound to mean some slowing down in the development of services; but that, in our judgment, is what the situation requires. I need hardly add that they do not imply any criticism of the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 1261–323.]
Therefore, the Order made two years ago by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government was one that he considered tough and hard for local authorities to comply with, and one which meant a cutting down of services.
The fact is that that Order allowed for a growth rate of 6 per cent. a year, but today the right hon. Gentleman is asking for a growth rate next year of 3 per cent. As for that 4½ per cent. which he seems to have invented by a most remarkable juggling of figures—well, if it is not fictitious but is a 4½ per cent. rate, why was it not put in the White Paper? It is not even mentioned there. The right hon. Gentleman knows that a growth rate of 3 per cent. is the reality he referred to. Therefore, after two years of difficult conditions as described by the Minister, we have the Government saying, "We were very tough two years ago, but we shall be even tougher for the next period."
The Minister responsible must know how difficult it is for a local authority to be perpetually cutting. A local authority can do all sorts of things for a time. It can decide not to replace vehicles, or not to maintain buildings, or put aside other than immediate repairs. But as these conditions continue it has to replace those vehicles, it has to maintain those buildings, it has to do those repairs. So with the continuance of this terrible squeeze for a further period, local authorities are being faced with very real and immense problems.
On the original grant, local authorities wanted increases of 8·3 per cent. and 9·1 per cent. for each of the two years. That was reduced by the Government to about 6 per cent. That meant that in the original first Order the Minister reduced local authorities requirements by £105

million and £104 million for each of those two years. A pledge was then given that there would be increase Orders. If wages go up as a result of Government action, and other costs go up, and interest charges go up, local authorities have a perfect right to increase Orders.
Such an increase Order was introduced, appropriately enough, just after another economic crisis—the devaluation crisis in 1967. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asked the Minister about the cost of devaluation and whether there would be an increase Order as a result. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied:
The hon. Gentleman knows about Part I of the Act, and he knows that, if the grim forebodings which he and other hon. Members have given vent to about devaluation take effect, this matter can be lookd at again in a further Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 755.]
That was on 14th December.
In January, only a few weeks later, the Prime Minister announced to the House that, irrespective of what happened, there would be no increase Order for 1968–69. I must ask the Minister to give the local authorities an absolute guarantee that having been told there could be increase Orders we will not once again have the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying, "No increase Orders. You must duly meet all of this yourselves." We are now told about two difficult years ahead, when already the Government have announced a series of inflationary measures, and already under this system local authorities have believed that they could get increase Orders and were suddenly told that increase Orders were not available. We have had that broken promise.
But what must be upsetting the local authorities is that the whole atmosphere of proper negotiation has disappeared. In the White Paper in July the Government made it clear that there was to be a 3 per cent. increase for 1969–70. That was laid down before any negotiations started. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the wording of his own White Paper. I do not, of course, accuse him of deliberately deceiving his readers, but I would point out that the atmosphere of the White Paper implies that the local authorities had agreed with


him. I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods. He knows that, as I say, I do not accuse him of deceiving deliberately.
Paragraph 12 of the White Paper reads:
The Government have discussed these matters, in the light of the local authority estimates, the price changes, and the development of services with the local authority associations and the Greater London Council.
The paragraph continues:
They have concluded …
The use of the word "They" gives the impression, though I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to give it, that the organisations mentioned had all agreed. As he told us, they did not agree with the figures.
In the past, under the general grant system, the estimates of local authorities were exceedingly accurate. An example of this is the fact that over the eight years of general grant preceding this present method of rate support, actual expenditure varied from estimated expenditure by as little as £7 million. The actual expenditure was £8,258 million and the estimated expenditure was £8,265 million. There is a great tradition among local authorities of very accurate estimates. In the view of local authorities, the Government's accepted figure for 1967–68 was about £41 million wrong compared with the actual figure and, as far as they can estimate for this year, the Government's figure is £71 million wrong. If the local authorities are right in their estimates and the Minister is wrong one sees the situation that arises.
If we take the base figure of £2,793, used by the Minister for his 3 per cent. increase, and add the £71 million which the local authorities consider should be added, we get £2,864 million. If we then regulate that for the adjustment of prices and add another £50 million, we get £2,914 million. The view of the local authorities is that the figure on last year's services which should have been subject to grant is £2,914 and £2,927 is what the Government offer for next year. So, if the local authorities are right, the Government are offering virtually no increase at all. As a result, there will be very considerable added burdens on the rates.
Hon. Members may have read the letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph last week from the Chairman of the G.L.C. Finance Committee, in which he said:
When the G.L.C.'s budget is introduced in February it will carry at least £5½ million extra expenditure imposed from Whitehall in higher Jenkins taxes, usurious rates of interest and artificially low Greenwood rents. That means nearly a nine per cent. increase on our previous budget before we even start to consider the cost of services some of which are growing fast in response to public demand.
Whitehall now tells us we must keep within three per cent. This comes pretty hard from a Government whose chief trouble is that its net income is never sufficient to pay for its gross habits.
Those figures from the G.L.C. can be reflected in many parts of the country.
Local authorities have been inundated these last two or three years with Departmental circulars asking local government to do things. I am pleased the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, is here because she will know just how many circulars her Department has sent out—all of which demand considerable increases in costs. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has already mentioned one circular on the whole comprehensive system which will mean very considerable increases in cost. There have been White Papers, and new duties have been placed on local authorities—administration on the Rent Acts, rent rebates, administration of the S.E.T., and all the mandatory extra costs as, for example, university grants, to which the Minister will doubtless refer later.
In this light, it is very wrong of the Minister to put in page 6 of his White Paper a series of paragraphs which give the impression that no real harm will take place. Let me refer, first, to education. Any person referring to paragraph 15 would gain the impression that all the basic things would remain untouched but that perhaps a few minor things might go out. But already some pretty fundamental things have gone wrong as compared with the Order of two years ago.
It is interesting to note that when the former Order was made my right hon. Friend made a point about the raising of the school-leaving age and was given a


categorical assurance by the Minister, who said:
My right hon. Friend said last week, I think, that there was no intention to defer raising the school-leaving age, which answers the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham.
The Government have shifted from that in education priorities and that promise has not been kept.
The Minister, replying to that debate on the Rate Support Grant Order, actually argued point by point that the Government were keeping completely to the National Plan in expenditure on education. He said:
In fact, under the Rate Support Grant Order the increase for 1966–67 to 1967–68 will be 5·8 per cent. and for the year 1967–68 to 1968–69 it will be 5·8 per cent. and for the year 1965–66 to 1966–67 it has been 6 per cent. We have thus kept up within the target set by the National Plan."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 1325–6.]
I hope that in replying tonight the Minister of State will tell us how far the Government are to keep to the target set by the National Plan.
I quote from a recently published education pamphlet, with a foreword by Sir William Alexander and written by Stuart Maclure, who is no supporter of the Conservative Party but writes as one genuinely interested in education. He ended this very important booklet by saying:
Anyone must be anxious to avoid crying 'wolf. But Mr. Short has already shown his hand by hinting that, not only is there no crisis, but that any talk of a crisis is just making political capital. This line is made no easier to maintain when one of the first education committees threatens to sack all its 73 part-time teachers in order to cut its costs is Labour-controlled South Shields. This is not a party political issue at all. The facts are plain and untinged by party strife: 1969 and 1970 threaten to be worst years for education since 1931.
All concerned with education, various chairmen of education committees I have spoken to at the weekend, are alarmed at the proposals in this Order.
On health and the welfare services the Government have published a report which gives an indication of the problems involved. They have passed a Bill which puts a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide proper health services. A report by the Office of Health Economics, entitled "Old Age", esti-

mated that of old people living in private households 348,000 feel the need for a home help but are not getting one, 361,000 would like a hot meal from mobile services but are not getting one, 703,000 would like chiropody services but are not getting them, 220,000 have severe hearing difficulties and about 342,000 have sight difficulties which have not received attention.
The whole theme of the report is that if local authorities were able to provide proper services in this sphere there would be a considerable saving in the National Health Service. About 35 per cent. of the expenditure on the Health Service is for people over 65 years of age. Every local authority knows that unless it is substantially to increase its rates these services will be adversely affected.
I turn now to highways, a matter I have been concerned with in recent years in another capacity. Anyone with knowledge of road construction and road building realises that it is ridiculous to consider it a saving to cut down on maintenance of roads. It is a very short-lived saving and the costs are more later. In addition to costs caused through congestion there are those concerned with road safety. No section of the community is more hard hit than the motoring public, who have been paying taxes which have been doubled in the lifetime of this Government. Yet here severe cuts are taking place.
I put to the Minister a number of particular problems which I think he has failed to recognise by the manner in which he introduced the Order. First, there is the problem of an authority involved in a major city redevelopment. Such an authority is left with empty buildings from which it cannot draw rates and it has a high borrowing rate for money with which to pay both capital and interest charges. I heard only today from Newcastle of the great difficulties which that authority will be in as a result of the Government's proposals.
Many localities are involved in town expansion as part of the Minister's housing policy. I know in detail of some of the problems for these localities because there is one in my constituency. Droit-wich is taking Birmingham's overspill at a considerable rate year by year. Under present arrangements it has to meet the cost of providing a sewerage scheme.
Although there are grants from the Government and the county, such an authority has to start repaying immediately both capital and interest before the houses are built. There is a heavy burden on the rates in such localities.
Droitwich had to increase its individual rate by 1s. 3d. for this purpose alone last year. I think that there will be a further increase of about the same amount next year and probably the year after. This is an absurdity flowing from the Minister's housing policy. How can we encourage industry to go to such an area if the rates are to be much higher than elsewhere because of the unwillingness to capitalise on a large number of services and defer payment until the houses are built?
I urge the Government to answer a basic question. They know that by cutting down the rate of increase in the grant to this extent, by not having provided a proper increase Order last year, by the fact that local authorities have already spent £110 million more than was provided for in previous grants, they are putting an enormous burden on local authorities. I urge them to be honest with the country and to tell the people that there will be a need for an increase in rates or a cutting down of services. Let the Minister of State make clear which of the two she would prefer.
If local authorities in the interest of the economy are to keep the rates level and to cut back services, to comply with these financial requirements, let the right hon. Lady boldly say so, and let her say which services should be cut. If, on the other hand, the Government would prefer the rates to go up, perhaps to take money out of consumer purchasing, and the services to be maintained, let her make that clear to local authorities. In the whole tone of this White Paper the Government have shown that they have failed to have the courage to tell the country that, due to their failure to run the economy properly, local authorities throughout the country will have the worst year in 1969 that they have had for many a decade.

Mr. Greenwood: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer two questions? I have listened to his speech with great interest and I welcome him to

the Opposition Front Bench in his new capacity. Will he help by answering these questions? I am not sure whether he is telling the House that the Government have been too tough or not tough enough in holding back local government expenditure, and, secondly, whether he is saying that we have been too generous in our Exchequer policy or not generous enough.

Mr. Walker: On the first and the second question, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the Chancellor's speech, when he introduced £250 million extra taxation, was a real reflection of the state of the economy, or if the speech this last weekend which was headlined, "Outlook Brighter, says Roy Jenkins", is a correct view, I will answer those questions.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Joe Ashton: This is a debate not only about the economy of local authorities, but about the revenue to which they are entitled. A year ago the Government took action by allowing local authorities to levy rates on empty properties, but the response has been very poor; only something like 10 per cent. of local authorities have taken the trouble to do that.
There is a very good reason for this, the oldest reason of all. They do not receive any extra cash, and so they will not do the work. Some time ago I was deputy chairman of the finance committee of Sheffield City Council, and earlier this year I made inquiries about how many empty properties there were in the city—commercial and industrial, and domestic—and what revenue we could expect from them if we levied rates an them. The revenue would have been about £500,000 extra for a city the size of Sheffield, which has perhaps 1 per cent. of the rateable value of the country.
If a local authority levies rates on empty properties it finds that its rate deficiency grant is decreased by the same amount. That is a great disincentive. The answer that we get in all too many cases is that it would be difficult to collect the money, that there would be difficulties in tracing the owners, particularly of old property which had been empty for many years, and that even when the money is collected the rate deficiency grant goes down by the same amount.
This has a great influence on one aspect of social life in big cities—houses standing empty. Recently in London a group of people invaded a block of flats, some of which were standing empty, to prove their point that flats and houses were empty too long when many people have no adequate accommodation. They have a very good point.
More accommodation would be put on the market if local authorities imposed rates on empty accommodation, because that would encourage landlords to let or sell the property very much quicker. This would also provide a sizeable revenue for local authorities, and help alleviate some of the expenditure restrictions imposed on them.
Take the case of a city which has a large proportion of slums which are due for demolition in five or ten years' time. A landlord finds it virtually impossible to sell an empty house with only five years left because no one will give a mortgage on it. So the property is decontrolled. It will probably be pulled down in a few years' time, and the landlord will not get very much for pulling it down. Therefore, he is, naturally, after the highest rent that he can obtain for the property, and in many cases he is prepared to let the property stand empty for 12 months or so in order to get the highest possible return on his investment over the remaining years.
In all too many cases such property is using existing services to a large extent. It has to be patrolled by the local police to make sure that no one breaks in and causes damage, the toilets have to be connected to the sewers, and the roads and pavements outside it has to be maintained, but the local authority gets no return. Although it can levy some charge on the property, it will then find its grant from the Government cut down by an equal amount, and nothing will have been done to free the property for the market.
The same thing applies to derelict properties, houses and factories, of which the North of England abounds. They stay empty for years, becoming a blot on the landscape. New industry is deterred from going to the area because of the state of the property. In many cases the property would be demolished if the owners had to pay rates, and by de-

molishing it they would free more land for industrial use, make the place look better and do a great deal for the "Clean up the North" campaign, in which many industries in the North have been asked to participate.
Difficulties would arise from levying rates on empty property. Many collieries are in small local authority areas. My constituency, for instance, has four local authorities. The closure of a colliery such as Firbeck Colliery would mean very great disadvantages to the Worksop Rural District Council if there were no rate deficiency grant to recompense it. This aspect would have to be taken into account. Where an industry closes down and the local authority does not levy rates on the empty property, there is a need to attract new industry or to prevent too big a burden falling on a nationalised industry or another industry and causing loss. There will have to be some recompense from the Ministry.
We must give local authorities some incentives to help themselves more. We must give them more freedom. I know that a Royal Commission is considering local government, and I do not want to anticipate its report, but local authorities must be given more local freedom to raise revenue by virtue of local advertising taxes or other income-raising methods. I hope that the Minister will examine this matter not simply from the revenue or financial point of view, but from the social point of view, the point of view of freeing houses and flats which are now kept off the market and helping people who are in social need.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I thought that the Minister's speech was very much of a smokescreen to try to deceive the country about the enormous burden the Government are putting on local authorities. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) put to the Minister squarely and honestly the question, "Will the Minister sympathise with the enormous burden which he is putting on local authorities at the present moment?".
The Minister said that sometimes hon. Members on this side of the House—I have done it many times—call for cuts in Government expenditure generally but not in particular. I will not go into the


broad general plan of this because this is not an economic debate, but in reply to the right hon. Gentleman I would tell him that if he will read any of the speeches that I have made on these points he will find that I have made specific proposals for cuts in Government expenditure, cuts which will not fall on education, particularly the primary schools, or on the welfare of the elderly, which will be the result of the policy that we heard the Minister enunciate.
On 16th January this year the Prime Minister told us that the rate support grant would not be increased to take account of increased costs, as had happened in previous years. He said that the Government would expect local authorities to absorb increases in costs which they cannot absorb by making savings elsewhere. This means that, although local government expenditure for grant purposes each year for the last 10 years has been allowed to increase at an average of 6 per cent., in real terms for 1969–70 the rate of increase will be halved to 3 per cent.—although I note that the Minister used the figure 4½ per cent.—and for 1970–71 it will be 5 per cent., again lower than the 6 per cent. allowed for in the past.
The dilemma which therefore faces local authorities as a result is that they are faced with either cutting the standard for services or increasing the rates, and most probably they will both increase the rates and cut back on services. Apart from the latest cut-back in the rate support grant, local authorities have had a steady increase in costs as a direct result of Government policy. Penal interest rates have been added to the cost of borrowing on their capital programme. What a bitter march it has been from the day in 1963 when the Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, referred to the high interest rates which were hampering local authorities. At that time the interest rate was 4 per cent. and it is now 7 per cent. and likely—who knows?—with the mismanagement of the economy to be 8 or 9 per cent. shortly.
There is also S.E.T., which has added to the cost of housing and other services, not to mention, in addition to the 3 per cent. cut in the rate support grant, the

higher postal charges, the higher electricity charges, the higher postal charges, the higher National Insurance contributions and higher taxation.
There have been all these additions to local authority costs, and the poor ratepayers of London and Harwich, to mention no others, have seen their councils' plans to bring council rents in line with fair rents for private tenants deliberately upset by the Government. In London, this will add £4 million to the costs borne by ratepayers, and there will be a proportionate increase in the burden on the ratepayers of Harwich. I see that the chairman of the Greater London Council's finance committee estimates that all these costs will bring an increase of 9 per cent. above last year, and that is before one starts to consider the rising costs of services.
Another large county has estimated that to maintain existing services would call for an extra 6½ to 7 per cent. in real terms, and, according to the Observer of 18th November, there can be no prospect of holding the increase to 3½ per cent. in that county without cutting back on the number of teachers in the schools.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry not to have intervened at the appropriate point when the hon. Gentleman was discussing rents, but this is an important matter and I should like to raise it now. Is it the official policy of the Conservative Party to allow local authorities to increase rents to as high a level as they wish, and, in particular, did the Conservative Party nationally support the Greater London Council in the vast increases which it was attempting to impose on its tenants?

Mr. Ridsdale: I am not the spokesman for my party.

Mr. Lubbock: But the hon. Gentleman should know what the policy is.

Mr. Ridsdale: I have been asked for my view and I shall give it. I have said that local authorities should apply to council rents the fair rent policy which is being applied to private tenants.
At the point where I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I was explaining how, as a result of the Government's present rate support grant policy and their limit of 3 per cent., local


authorities face severe cuts, cuts particularly in the education service which will hit more than any others the primary schools. This is what concerns me most. The tragedy of the present limited rate support grant is that it necessarily entails cuts in education where they hurt most, in the nursery and primary schools. The effect will be particularly harsh in North-East Essex, where we have already had to face a 77 per cent. cut in the school building programme.
This is not all. At the present level of grant, there will have to be cuts in welfare services for the elderly. In North-East Essex we have a high proportion of elderly people on small fixed incomes. Far from bringing any prospect of our seeing the recommendations of the See-bohm Report carried out, the Minister's ruling will, alas, continue to involve cuts in the home help service and the postponement of many badly needed forms.
How guilty the Labour Government must feel at their failure to expand production which makes local authorities face either harsh cuts in the social services or large increases in rates—or, perhaps, both.
That is what will happen. If the local authorities have to raise rates, there will be an additional burden on the domestic ratepayers, and particularly on some of those who are retired and living on small fixed incomes, in spite of what might seem the generous Government help of 1s. 3d. in the £ towards the domestic rate burden. Some people will meet the burden by taking money which would have otherwise have gone to savings. In addition, a heavy burden will fall on industrial and commercial ratepayers, thus adding to the costs of production at a critical time for our economy when we are fighting to expand exports.
Is there an alternative to the Government's rate support grant policy? As I say, in North-East Essex we face harsh cuts in education, particularly in the primary schools, and an extra burden on the elderly through either rising rates or reduced services. It seems wrong that at the same time places like Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford and Brighton will receive respectively through the rate support grant £18½ million, £15·9 million, £7 million and £3·3 million if they are able to afford local radio stations out of the rates. As for Liverpool, it produces

every so often a glossy magazine even glossier than the Tatler or the Queen.
I am not at all sure that help through the rate support grant should go to those areas and to those people who really need it. What always concerns me in a debate like this, which many of my hon. Friends attend in order to speak because we know the difficulties which people face in our areas, is that the Government make no proper effort to set the right priorities in the social services. Yet until those priorities are right, if cuts in Government spending have to be made—I accept that they have to be at this time—they will not fall where they should. Cuts in Government spending should not fall, as they do at present, on nursery and primary schools and on the care of the elderly, many of whom are having a difficult enough time as it is.
This, therefore, is my simple message to the Government. Hands off the primary schools. Hands off the care of the elderly. Let us have a realistic review of all aspects of Government spending. Let us have priorities for action so that we may stop the terrible drift whereby Government and local authority spending is now 48 per cent. of the gross national product.
Above all, as anyone knows who deals with the social services, both locally and nationally, we must create wealth, and there must, therefore, be saving and investment to create that wealth. This is why I am so disappointed that the Minister has not been more honest with the House about the cuts which will come as a result of the present level of rate support grant.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I must at the outset comment on the attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). It is not sufficient, when my right hon. Friend asks questions of major importance on public expenditure which the House is entitled to have answered, merely to say, "I shall not answer unless you answer two other questions"—questions which are irrelevant to this debate.

Mr. Peter Walker: Irrelevant?

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, certainly. The country is entitled to know what the


attitude of the Conservative Party is. The Opposition are taking part in a debate today on the question of public expenditure, how that expenditure shall be distributed, how its total shall be calculated and what the priority purposes should be. The Opposition may not be inclined to declare themselves, but in a debate proceeding from those premises they ought to make clear what priorities in public expenditure they would pursue and how or where they would go for expansion or contraction. It is no good politicians mouthing generalisations in the House, saying that there will be serious cuts here or there, using the psychology of fear, and hoping that an intelligent electorate will come to conclusions which they want them to come to.

Mr, Ridsdale: We have done that time and again in our speeches in economic debates.

Mr. Leadbitter: Just as I say. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have done it time and time again. They want the luxury of saying "Cut down public expenditure" in a climate of national crisis, but they do not want the challege of saying where. My right hon. Friend says honestly that the purpose of the Order is to reduce the rate of growth. However hon. Members opposite might look at the matter, the Order makes an increase, but it is not the rate of increase that some of us would have liked. It is a control of the rate of growth. When my right hon. Friend is willing to say that, it is wrong for the Opposition to indulge in purely negative criticism.
I have here a pamphlet issued by the Political Centre of the Conservative Party which helps me to answer the question for them. On the abolition of grants it says:
Government grants to local authorities have always been a contentious matter. The more Whitehall contributes to the cost of local services, the more control will be exercised by Government Departments. The experience of local authorities when the new rate support grant was settled is a telling example of this.
Therefore, we must ask a question which is a corollary of the major ones I have put. Does increasing the expenditure of local authorities in the form of a grant take away the independence of councils?
What is the purpose of the argument of the hon. Member for Worcester? If he says that we should have increased the grant, he is saying that he is against the declared policy of his party, he is saying it in spite of this policy that increasing grants is a contentious matter involving control from Whitehall, which I take it he disapproves of. What is the purpose of his contribution this afternoon?

Mr. Peter Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman now read what is inside the booklet as to whether it is official Conservative policy?

Mr. Leadbitter: I am quoting from a pamphlet issued by the Conservative Central Office, and I am only prepared—

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is quoting it as if it is official Conservative Party Policy when he knows full well that inside the publication, as in all C.P.C. publications, it states that it is intended to arouse political discussion and is not the official Conservative Party policy.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is not for me to declare what is the official Conservative Party policy.
I shall now quote the final paragraph dealing with Government grants, which whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not represents considerable thought in the Conservative Party. It says:
The day-to-day decisions of elected councillors are still tied far too tightly by detailed financial control of this kind from officials in Whitehall. The abolition of most grants and all current loan sanction procedures would immeasurably increase the freedom of local councils in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. Until now he has in effect said that the Government have not made grants which will sustain the improving conditions of local government services. I am saying that in addition to his contribution today there is a considerable Conservative opinion, whether official policy or not, which was published by the Central Office of the Conservative Party, stating clearly that the grants should be abolished.

Mr. Walker: This is almost the most dishonourable speech I have heard in the House. The hon. Gentleman was misquoting completely. Will he now say what the pamphlet states should be put in its place?

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall merely repeat what is said in the pamphlet. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue the idea that we are taking part in a T.V. interview in the House. I will not be subjected to a David Frost tactic. I shall quote again the words that came from the office of the Conservative Party:
The abolition of most grants and all current loan sanction procedures would immeasurabley increase the freedom of local councils … 
I merely quote that as a matter of fact. It us up to hon. Members whether they like it or not.
The hon. Member for Worcester referred to the relief assistance for many hundreds of people throughout the country. He conveniently forgot to refer to the present rate relief, which brings considerable financial easement to large numbers of poor people whose incomes cannot be raised. We should be glad in present circumstances, when we are talking about increasing local government costs, that old people, married couples with an income of about £10 10s. a week and single people with incomes of under £10 a week are given considerable rate relief. I was told in answer to a Question that in the Northern Region such relief was benefiting many thousands of people by about £12 a head per annum. That is a considerable saving for people in the low income groups. Moreover, they receive the benefit of the 5d. a year addition which has been made as a contribution by grant to local authorities to assist the rates. Increasing the Government grant is helping the rates to the extent of 1s. 3d. in the pound for 1969 and 1s. 8d. in the pound for 1970.
Since it is reasonable that everybody in the country cannot be rich and the philosophy of any Government must be to seek to achieve a situation where nobody is poor, people on low incomes will welcome a grant from the Government of 1s. 3d. in the pound to assist with their rates, and they will also welcome 1s. 8d. in 1970.
It was convenient for the hon. Gentleman to produce a letter from the Daily Telegraph suggesting that rates would soar in comparison with the past few years. That is not the case, but it is quite usual for the Daily Telegraph to fly

such kites before the estimates of local authorities have been determined about events which do not occur. I think that rate increases up and down the country will be far more moderate than the hon. Gentleman implied. His whole object was not to get down to details and facts but to create fear by making blind, sweeping, irrelevant statements. If it is true that the rate increases will be more moderate, is not a 1s. 3d. in the pound grant a considerable contribution to easing the position of many people living in the developing urban areas and conurbations, where increases in local government costs are possibly more marked?
I need not make a judgment on this, because the past year has shown that those who have received assistance as a result of the present Government's measures have been grateful. The improvement is vast compared to the rate relief introduced by the party opposite when they were in power. We are able to talk in terms of thousands who have benefited from our policy. When right hon. Members opposite were in office they could talk in terms only of hundreds who had benefited from their policy, and only meagrely at that.
It is all very well pursuing political argument in the House. We are all prone to do it. But we are entitled to ask some questions if the country is to get benefit from our debates. The local authorities are the largest spenders in the country. Is it right, therefore, that the Government should have requested them to modify their programmes in the light of the national crisis? Ont would have thought that such a request would have the fullest support on both sides of the House and that there would be no political argument about it.
We all have prestige projects which we would like to see carried out in our own constituencies. It want to see new baths, recreation centres and youth clubs and civic centres in my constituency. I believe that my townspeople deserve them. No doubt every hon. Member thinks that his constituents deserve them. But, as serious politicians, when we face the question of whether it is right for my right hon. Friend to ask for moderation in the rate of growth of expenditure—and we are not here talking of cuts—we must also ask whether we accept that the rate of growth of public expenditure is of vital


importance to the economic health of the country. The answer is that we do.
Having said that, it is also appropriate to ask whether it is right that the Government should seek to take upon themselves a reasonable share of the percentage of the total expenditure in order that local authorities, within the limits laid down, can get on with their jobs. Again the answer is, "Yes". My right hon. Friend mentioned that the share for 1969 will be 56 per cent. and for 1970 57 per cent., an increase on the figures of 54 per cent. and 55 per cent., respectively, recorded in the two previous years.
Therefore, the divisions in the House on this subject do not appear to be so large after all. We agree that some control is reasonable and that the Government should exercise a proper control. The only area over which we find disagreement is in the question, "How much?" Perhaps the hon. Member for Worcester will brief one of his colleagues to give us certain answers. Would the Opposition give 58 per cent. in 1970 instead of 57 per cent.? Would they give 57 per cent. next year instead of 56 per cent.? We are entitled to know because what we are playing with is the taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman knows very well—

Mr. Peter Walker: rose —

Mr. Leadbitter: When I come to a comma I will give way. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we are arguing about the amount of support grant, about the needs element. Therefore, he has to say whether he feels that it is too much or too little.

Mr. Walker: I hold my judgment on the state of the economy, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he thinks the economy is going very well, well, pretty well, badly, or is in a very bad state indeed.

Mr. Leadbitter: It would be going a damned sight better if there were less sabotage from the benches opposite. The hon. Gentleman has invited comment from me on this. Time will show that the talk of this last weekend will do the Tory Party no good. In this country in which I believe—and I will not impugn many hon. Members opposite because I think they also believe in it—we are

building more houses, schools and hospitals and are providing better health services at an improved rate and the social wage has increased during the past four years.
I stopped here deliberately today not so much to confirm what large sections of our people already know but to take the opportunity to say to the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends that the kind of speeches they propounded last weekend will find a different reaction in the long term from what they think. If they have the sense to see it, they will realise that in the long run such speeches will boomerang upon them. It is political sense that the Opposition should outline what is right in the country as well as attack what they think is wrong.
I remember that when I was leader of the Labour Party in Hartlepool, the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), then Lord Hailsham, arrived in the area wearing his cloth cap. He wanted the number of new houses in the Northern Region increased from 18,000 to 25,000. I am not getting out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted us to build more houses. But he did not give us the money to do it. Although housing revenue has nothing to do with the support grant in the sense in which I am discussing it, the Government have given large subsidies to local authorities to build the houses which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone could not get.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Order before the House, which is not to do with housing.

Mr. Leadbitter: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in such a brief speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I have not spoken as long as the hon. Member for Worcester did. Right hon. Members opposite are not entitled to talk about limitation of speeches. It is time right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite listened more to the back benches. To have one point out of order is not asking too much in a brief speech if the hon. Member feels sorely about it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Silly little man.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has made his usual remark, but I shall not descend to his level. There is nothing more temporary than the Front Bench opposite. They are all budding leaders of the Opposition. There is a great contest on the Opposition Front Bench. I will not come down to the hon. Gentleman's level and repeat his remark.
I will, however, repeat that the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Worcester and others should address themselves to the questions put by my right hon. Friend. Have we done too much? Have we been too generous? Have we been too hard? Finally, I ask them, "Will you state clearly and distinctly what the levels of grant would be if you had the power to implement them in the circumstances in which this country is placed? To what extent do you support the Leader of the Opposition who said the other day that he would make cuts in public expenditure?"
Hon. Members must answer these questions, for the country must know the answers. If they are dissatisfied with the Order, it is not sufficient for them to say that they dislike it, or that it is harsh, or that it will create despondency in the town halls. The town halls, the people in the urban and rural areas and in the conurbations will ask the obvious question—"If that is your opinion, what would you do?". That is the challenge for today.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has issued many challenges and asked many rhetorical questions. Apparently he is the only Member of Parliament and possibly the only ratepayer in the country who does not realise that over the last three or four years rates have gone steadily upwards. I was surprised, too, by the very self-satisfied approach of the Minister to this serious problem.
Inevitably the debate is tied up with nothing more or less than the mismanagement of the national economy by the Government. In recent weeks, we have had a constant flow of maritime metaphors. We have been "blown off course"; it has been "steady as she goes ". although I for one never noticed

it; and latterly we have had "a touch on the tiller". No doubt all this is particularly suited to us as a great maritime nation, but it is a singular travesty that our national affairs at this time should be in the hands of the most landlubberly crew of a Cabinet and Government which it has ever been this country's misfortune to have.
The Government are guilty of treating local authorities in the most disgraceful manner in the means which they have employed to bring down the growth of revenue expenditure. Only two years ago, at short notice the Government made an arbitrary cut of £47 million in the estimates of local authorities when they were fixing the rate support grants for the years 1967–68 and 1968–69. They chose "miscellaneous services", but they did not specify how the reductions were to be made. Moreover, it was perfectly obvious that the Government had set themselves that figure before ever discussing it with local authority representatives.
When after a ruthless examination of the local authorities it dawned on the Minister that it was impossible to pinpoint sufficient specific economies which could be made, he had to lop off an arbitrary sum to reduce the total to the figure which the Government had already laid down as being as much as they were prepared to allow, and hence the arbitrary cut of £47 million, and we all know the result. Local authorities, left with no room for manœuvre, many having already embarked on projects which could not be halted, had no assistance for increases in costs and no option but to make considerably higher rate demands. It is utterly wrong that rates should be treated by the Government as a substitute for taxes.
The domestic element of the rate support grant may have saved householders and I am thankful for that, but there has been no mention of the grievous effect which a constant rise in rates has upon industry and commerce, an effect which is frequently overlooked. It is not only householders, but industry and commerce too who suffer rates—shopkeepers and the industry upon whom we rely for exports have had to bear the brunt of the Government's mismanagement.
The pressure on local authorities continues. As well as deciding that local


authorities must absorb increased costs in 1968 and 1969 without further grant aid, the Minister has decided—I believe that it has been decided for him—that in 1969 and 1970 the grant increase will be restricted to 3 per cent. in real terms. It is an interesting fact that the Association of Municipal Corporations points out that net actual expenditure in 1967–68 and the best available estimates for 1968–69 clearly show that local authority expenditure has not conformed to the figures assumed and used by the Government. The consequence is that the percentage of grant aid has been less than the 54 per cent. and 55 per cent. in the two years 1967–68 and 1968–69 respectively. In other words, what should have been a burden falling on taxes has fallen upon rates. Moreover, it is feared that similarly the 56 per cent. and 57 per cent. of Exchequer aid proposed for 1969–70 and 1970–71 will represent a smaller proportion of local authority expenditure.
I have seen in the Press—and of course I always believe the Press; in any event, I do on this occasion—that discussions between the Minister and the local authority representatives ended in complete disagreement. I can well believe it. The Minister's Report states that local authority revenue expenditure has been growing at an annual rate of 6 per cent. or more in real terms. The magnitude of cutting back to 3 per cent. is best illustrated by the figures for a developing area with a rising population. The built-in impetus which a rising population brings has effects too numerous to mention here. The County of Dorset has had an annual growth rate of nearer 9 per cent. than 6 per cent., while the Borough of Poole, my constituency, which is a rapidly expanding town, has had a growth rate of approximately 12½ per cent. over the last few years. The problem is not unique to the county of Dorset or the borough of Poole. All expanding counties, cities and towns are similarly affected, and all are in a highly vulnerable position when faced with arbitrary decisions such as that which the Government have taken.
The Government appear to have overlooked—and I suggest that they have avoided—the financial factors

which local authorities suffer severely but which are entirely outside their control. These include penal interest rates and major pay awards. The National Joint Council for Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Staffs has an award now imminent which is not catered for in the Government's forecast and there is an even larger award due in education. For some councils pegged council rents will lead to an imbalance in the housing revenue accounts and that can only mean that they must be balanced by a subvention on the ratepayer.
There are expanding essential services. For example, in Dorset the school building programme is almost wholly committed to providing additional accommodation for the growing child population and that means that Dorset's budget this coming year will be £10 million, which means that it has risen by 6·3 per cent. I ask hon. Members to think of the loan charges involved in catering for this rising school population which must be accommodated and taught, and it is in the primary schools where the problem arises.
Other recent increases which have not been budgeted for are increases in the petrol tax, in Purchase Tax, in National Insurance, postage and telephones.
There is one other very important matter which has not been discussed today. Very shortly, we are to be faced with the decimalisation of the currency, which will mean either the replacement or alteration of machinery throughout our local government services. It will cost a considerable sum of money, which will have to be borne by the local authorities themselves.
Our local authorities have no financial scope or leeway to do anything about implementing the provisions of the spate of legislation which has been showered upon them from above. We have had the Town and Country Planning Act, the Caravan Sites Act, the Countryside Act and the Trade Descriptions Act, to name but a few. On top of all that, the building regulations require a 33⅓ per cent. increase in the size of the inspectorate in local authorities.
I realise that, in some cases, local authorities have discretion about whether to implement the provisions of some of this recent legislation. In other cases,


it is obligatory, and, in this connection, it should not be overlooked that there is what might be called a pull devil, pull baker attitude within Government Departments, with some of them urging local authorities to take action to implement parts of certain Acts, while the Treasury and the Minister of Housing and Local Government try to slam on the brakes, urging them not to take action.
Serious difficulties are being created. I know of a district council which has attempted to implement the Measure introduced by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) relating to caravan sites. A compulsory purchase order has been placed on a piece of land to accommodate gipsies within the spirit of that Act. Meanwhile, the county council concerned has had to strike the item out of its estimates. We have reached the silly state of affairs where the district council is doing what it feels it should do and where the county council agrees but is unable to implement what the district council wishes and has the right to do.
Meanwhile, the Minister is taking a further swipe at minor highways, buildings, and town and country planning procedures. We have had two years' neglect on our minor highways and buildings already. If we have a further two years' neglect on the maintenance of highways and buildings, the local authorities will lay up for themselves an enormous liability for repairs when it becomes possible to deal with these matters once again.
As regards the town and country planning administration, I recognise that it bulks very large in the administrative side of local authorities, but it would be foolish to impose rigorous cuts in that direction. I know from my postbag how vitally important is thoroughly efficient, intelligent, humane and considerate administration of the general planning regulations. Hardly a post goes by that I do not receive a number of letters on the subject. In a rapidly expanding area such as that which I have the honour to represent, inevitably there will be complaints about loss of amenities, the changing character of certain areas, uneasiness about the rate and standard of development and anxiety about the reported routes of new trunk

roads. These are all matters which come within town and country planning, and I would deplore any diminution in the efficiency of town planning departments. It is inevitable that they should grow, in view of the great problems put upon them. It would be utter folly for this Government to undo this very important work, the achievements of which they have contributed to in a recent Act of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) referred to home helps and old people's homes. Both are matters of prime importance. In Poole, we have much above the national average of over-65s. We need an extra old people's home. We cannot get it because of the cut back. That sort of difficulty is by no means confined to my constituency, because I know that many hon. Members have the same problem.
There is one other point which is germane to the argument today although it is not directly related to it. It is the disastrous act of the Minister's immediate predecessor. He made a number of mistakes of fair magnitude when he was Minister of Housing, but by far the greatest was to postpone the quinquennial revaluation for rating purposes which should have taken place this year. It has not happened, and it will cause great hardship in the future when it is introduced. It is possible that the Government are taking the cue from that play a few years ago called "Waiting for Godot". In this case, they are waiting not for Godot but for the Royal Commission to report, hoping that they may help the Government out of this awkward problem of the quinquennial revaluation. If the recommendations are not such that it can be avoided, I can only suggest that the Minister should realise that a dying Labour Government will bequeath this unpleasant task to a new Conservative Administration. It will be awkward for us when the time comes, but it has to be faced.
I want to conclude with a few brief remarks about the rate support grant as a whole. When the Government moved from specific grants to a block grant system certain principles were laid down. In the Local Government Act, 1966, it appeared that they would work out very well. In the event, I suggest that the


way in which the Government are handling the rate support grant is such that they are not implementing what they promised to do.
The grant legislation provides for local authorities to put forward estimates of expenditure, to be discussed and agreed with the Government, which would form the basis of the overall grant level. Although there always has been, naturally, some pressure from both sides to look after their respective interests, up to a year or so ago, the final outcome always had been a broad agreement between both sides. However, recently, the block grant system has been manipulated, and it is clear that it places local authorities in a highly vulnerable position. I suggest that this needs serious consideration. The original intention of the block grant system was that local authorities would receive broadly the same total amount of grant as previously but would have greater freedom in deciding the levels of individual services. As we all know, this is not working out because no increase Orders are being allowed. That is the whole crux of the matter. If increase Orders are not allowed for unforeseen rises in costs the whole system falls to the ground.
The Government cannot hope indefinitely to have it both ways. Either they must state exactly where services are to be reduced and take clear responsibility for the reductions, or they must be prepared to fix the rate support grant total at a realistic level. It is understood that the local authority associations are taking up some aspects of the problem, but, at the moment, local authorities are still subjected to various forms of pressure from Government Departments to improve specific services at the same time as they are exhorted in general terms to practise the most ruthless economy.
We know that economy is necessary. It is wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that we are urging that these restrictions should be lifted. It is not the fault of the Opposition that the country's economy has got into such a parlous state, and it is certainly not the fault of the local authorities. We have to make the best of it, and the best way of doing that is to have a change of Government.
Meanwhile, it is hoped that the Government will use their common sense and

make an effort to help local authorities in the difficult tasks that they have to perform. If they do not, ultimately the ratepayer will suffer.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). His speech was very well written, and well argued and I shall read it with considerable interest in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It may not excite very much debate, but I shall read it very carefully tomorrow.
This has been a remarkable debate. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) added his usual touch of colour by describing the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) as a kind of poor man's David Frost. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was fighting well below his weight. It may be that he was over-excited or that he is still adjusting himself to the problems of housing and local government, but I feel that even he will agree that this was one of his more light-weight performances.
The hon. Member for Worcester took us to the conference at Basle and the recent discussions of the Group of Ten in Bonn. He waved the Order and said that it was not the sort of document that my right hon. Friends would want to show to international bankers. May I remind the House that Sir Leslie O'Brien, addressing the Society of County Treasurers on 28th November, referred to the subject covered by the Order. He dealt at length in his speech with the increase in local public expenditure. The Sun, of 29th November, reports:
The Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Leslie O'Brien, last night attacked the 'hectic' increase in spending by local authorities. He told the Society of County Treasurers at a London dinner that their £5.000 million expenditure last year was double the 1960 figure.
There has been a great deal of comment about the increasing proportion of total public expenditure spent by local authorities. Thus the hon. Member for Worcester need not say that the proposals of my right hon. Friend have not been brought to the attention of bankers or anyone else outside this House. The banking community has been studying the increase in public expenditure by local authorities as carefully as it has been


examining increases in other forms of public expenditure.
Now there are three main propositions to be put forward in this debate. First, that the Rate Support Grant Order, 1968, allows for a higher level of expenditure by local authorities; secondly, that it increases the proportion of local government expenditure that is met by the Government; and thirdly, that it gives increased help to domestic ratepayers by providing an extra 5d. in the £ next year and a further 5d. in the £ in the year 1970–71. I should like to know whether any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to contest any of those three propositions. There has been a good deal of debating talk today but I believe that each of these three propositions is both extremely important and incontrovertible.
Notwithstanding what the Opposition may say about protecting local government services, what really annoys them is that public expenditure by local authorities has been increasing, is increasing, and will, because of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend, continue to increase.

Sir Edward Boyle: Surely the test which we must bring to the White Paper today is not whether public expenditure has been increasing, but whether it has been increasing at the proper rate relative to the responsibilities of local authorities and the increased numbers for whom they have to provide.

Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is always extremely fair. I agree that we cannot simply compare expenditure one year with another and have any meaningful idea of whether it has been increasing at the proper rate. That is another question. But I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Leader of the Opposition, in the speech that he made on 25th November in this House, emphasised the need to cut down public expenditure in a large number of spheres.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to housing revenue accounts. I am sure that any enlightened local authority would have been deeply disquieted by what the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said about slashing housing subsidies. I represent part of a city—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member

for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) who represents another part of the city—where any slashing of housing subsidies will mean a tremendous headache for every member of the local authority's housing committee. I do not wish to go too deeply into that matter, but I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will at least agree that anyone who listened to his right hon. Friend on 25th November must have felt that he showed a great deal of animus in everything he said about housing subsidies. Many experienced people, including many in Manchester who have grown grey in the service of local government, are very much afraid that a Conservative Government would slash local government expenditure just as harshly as they would slash public expenditure in the other spheres mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.
I referred earlier to the speech made by the hon. Member for Worcester and one still does not know whether he wanted local authorities to have more money or less. But presumbaly the only reason for his saying that this Order might usefully be shown by the Government to the Group of Ten or to intertional bankers was to indicate that in his view, there is too much public expenditure by local authorities.
Commenting on the proposal to increase domestic de-rating in the Daily Express of 4th December the hon. Member for Worcester is quoted as accusing
… Mr. Greenwood last night of failing to disclose that the figure approved for the current year 'has proved to be inadequate by more than £40 million'.
It may be that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, will explain that comment of his hon. Friend. I will, if he wishes, pass the quotation to him.
Many people have found it very difficult to follow the hon. Member for Worcester on this point. As I said, I do not think that he has been fighting at his proper weight in this debate and it may be that he is still adjusting himself to a new subject. But he has made speeches which certainly call for a great deal of explanation. For, contrary to the impression he gave some of us today, the Daily Express seemed to indicate that he felt the provision for public expenditure by local authorities was too low.
Why do not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite come clean and say whether they want more expenditure than is provided for in this Order, or less?
I believe that in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Handsworth, we now have on the Front Bench opposite the most honourable spokesman of the Conservative Party, who will wind up the debate for the Opposition. He is held in high regard by both sides of the House as one of the most honourable spokesmen of his party and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to the three propositions which I have made. I know that he will also address himself to the questions put by my right hon. Friend. For I hope the message will go out from the House today that what we are doing is at least an attempt to help local government, but in extremely difficult circumstances.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who is sitting on the second of those "shadowy" benches, is taking an increased interest in the debate.

Mr. Temple: I have been here all the time.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman looked unconvinced when his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester opened the debate. Nor does he seem to be as convinced now as he ought to be, so perhaps I can tell him something about some of the benefits to my constituency of what the Government has done to help domestic ratepayers. In the year 1967–68 the County Borough of Manchester received £220,995 in domestic rate relief. This year, 1968–69, it will receive £451.614. This is a very big help, and is welcomed throughout the City of Manchester as an earnest of the Government's intention to do everything they can to help domestic ratepayers.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worcester has left the Chamber. Perhaps I can give the relevant figures for the City which he represents. He might have had the relevance—someone has just said "decency"—to mention what the Government have done to help the domestic ratepayers of Worcester. Worcester is a small place compared with Manchester, but in 1967–68 it received Government support of £29,051. In 1968–69

it will receive £59,351, and the Order provides for an even greater amount of support in 1969–70 and 1970–71. The right hon. Member for Handsworth, when he winds up, will perhaps help me to discover how Birmingham compares with Manchester by giving the House the figure for the extra help given by the Government to Birmingham's domestic ratepayers.
Ratepayers in many parts of the country are extremely anxious about what would happen to domestic derating, and many other recent benefits, if by some mischance the party opposite became the Government. I do not think that we need to try to guess what the result would be. We need only recall what was done in 1964. It was then that the Conservative Government brought in the Rating (Interim Relief) Act. The City of Manchester, whose ratepayers are now receiving very considerable help by way of individual rate rebates, received only a few thousand £s from that Act. We were told that that Measure would help the landladies of Bournemouth, Brighton and Eastbourne. But it was certainly of no value to the general body of ratepayers in Manchester. In fact, one ratepayer there has calculated that it was worth less to Manchester than one potato crisp per ratepayer.
We are anxious to support my right hon. Friend, not only because he has introduced domestic derating, not only because he has introduced individual rate rebates, not only because he has introduced greatly increased housing subsidies and done so much in other ways to help ratepayers, but because we feel that the party opposite would dedicate itself to reducing local public expenditure. We know it is vital for local services to improve, that this means increased public expenditure, and we are afraid of what will happen should the party opposite return to power.
I wish that we were not talking about this subject at all. I am on record as speaking against the rating system as such.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the rating system as such but the Order before the House.

Mr. Morris: I naturally accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I am


saying is that it is unfortunate that in the 20th century we still have to retain the rating system at all.
There are some other points to which I had hoped to refer. I should like, certainly the large local authorities, to use some of their resources to do what the House has done, which is to protect people from the effects of maladministration. Hon. Members on both sides have from time to time said that there ought to be municipal or regional ombudsmen, and I hope that this proposal will be given close attention by local authorities.
There is also the need for local consumer advisory services at the town halls. But I conclude by hoping that we shall get away from party debating points in discussing local public expenditure. By all means let us take into account what is said by people like Sir Leslie O'Brien about the figures referred to in the Order, but let us also recognise that the House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the enormous protection he has given against those who would slash the expenditure of our local authorities.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: There seems to me one thing common to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is a desire to know what Conservative policy is on local government finance. I can only attribute that to the fact that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite read The Times leader today, which foreshadows a change of Government in the fairly near future. It is right that the Minister should question my hon. Friend, because the country rightly wants to know exactly where the Conservative Party stands on local government finance.
I would not criticise the Government for exercising restraint in public expenditure. I am a member of the "old boy's club" and of the "union" that studies local government finance. It was only two years ago that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who is one of the oldest boys in the club, welcomed his right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government to the club. It is significant that the super-expert—the hon. Member for Widnes—is not here. I do not know whether he has

been dropped from the team! It is also significant that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) was not here at the beginning of the debate. He has arrived now, but I do not think that he will wind up the debate. People who wind up these debates seem to be dismissed afterwards, so that we have a change of batting on the Government side. I am not surprised, because I find local government finance—especially as undertaken by the present Government—one of the most abstruse matters that I have ever had to deal with.
A few years ago the Government of the day—and this habit was taken up by the Labour Government—were accustomed to use the computer belonging to the Cheshire County Council to work out the rate support grant and the general grant. Since the Labour Government took over—it is significant that the Ministry has bought its own computer to make these calculations, so that Ministers can talk to the computer and the computer can talk back in the language that Ministers want to hear. Perhaps that is why we have never had a more confusing Explanatory Memorandum to a Rate Support Grant Order than the one we have before us now.
I regard this Order as an exercise in "cookery" that has never been seen before. I call it an exercise in cookery, although I do not wish it to be thought of as insulting Mrs. Beeton, nor am T using the word as having any connection with cordon bleu. But these figures have been cooked so much that they are entirely unrecognisable.
I challenge the Minister to explain how he made 3 per cent. into 4½ per cent. My hon. Friend asked him this question and he did not answer. Throughout the Prime Minister's statement and the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum, the figure of 3 per cent. has been constantly referred to. It seems to me that even 3 per cent. is an over-estimate of what local authorities are going to get in real terms.
I have already referred to the fantastically good leader in The Times today, entitled "The Danger to Britain". One phrase in it caught my attention. It said:
Patience is not a virtue when picnicking on Vesuvius".


In my opinion "complacency" should be substituted for "patience". The Minister's manner is always pleasant, but today he was far too complacent when putting before the House gigantic figures of an almost incomprehensible nature. I regard him as being culpably complacent not only about the state of local government finance but the state of our national finances.
The leader in The Times went on to say that:
People are confused and alarmed and sad.
I am not surprised that they are confused. I am confused about this Order and I have had the opportunity of discussing it today with two of the greatest experts on local government finance. I put some questions to them and found that they were confused by some of the terminology used in the Explanatory Memorandum, because at various stages it describes things in real terms, current terms and all sorts of other terms, but never in terms comprehensible to the man in the street. This Explanatory Memorandum is the biggest piece of phoney calculation since the Prime Minister's statement that the £ in the pocket would be worth exactly the same after devaluation as before.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I do not know whether the point raised by the hon. Member is relevant, but if we were to cut housing subsidies, slash food support costs and do all the things—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I have already told the hon. Member that that is not within the purview of the debate.

Mr. Temple: I always try to keep in order in a debate of this nature. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did claim to be an "old boy" in these matters.
The Prime Minister pulled the figure of 3 per cent. out of the air. It had no relevance to local government services. That is my quarrel with the Government. If they had gone through the expenditure service by service and item by item, and decided to make certain cuts in certain places or to cut out certain services altogether in order to arrive at the figure of 3 per cent. that would have been quite all right. But the figure was really an exercise in walking backwards. The

Prime Minister is constantly walking backwards from the real figures. He dreamed up a figure of £2,000 million for defence expenditure and then decided that that figure was the ideal one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] I am not out of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker will call me to order. I shall take my instructions from him and not from hon. Members opposite.
I also claim that these figures ought to bear some resemblance to the figures in the National Plan. Have hon. Members opposite forgotten that the former Deputy Prime Minister drew up the National Plan?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Order. We are not discussing the National Plan.

Mr. Temple: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in the National Plan were laid down clearly the figures for local government expenditure for some years. That is what the Order is meant to implement. The local authority associations have been denied by the Prime Minister an increase Order for the current year's expenditure. That is an extraordinary decision of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the Minister took part in the debates on the Local Government Act, 1966, but they have no doubt been drawn to his attention, and he will know that it is customary for increase Orders to be made to meet special situations.
According to the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, local authorities estimate that during the current year—1968–69—expenditure figures are now running approximately £70 million ahead of current estimates. There is from now until April to run, so it would hardly be wrong to estimate that at the end of the current year expenditure will have run at a rate of £100 million a year in excess of Departmental estimates.
There is to be no increase Order, so local authorities are to be denied about £50 million in grants which they would undoubtedly have been given under a Conservative Government. I ask hon. Members opposite whether, when a Conservative Government were in office, increase Orders were not brought before the House to deal with a situation like


the present and challenge them to say that I am wrong.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has made his calculations of a possible £30 million increase on top of the £70 million, making a total of £100 million, and has accused the Government of creating a loss of about £50 million to local authorities. Is that the amount that the Tories would have given local authorities?

Mr. Temple: I need not answer that question, because what I asked was, could any hon. Member opposite tell me a year in which, in a similar situation, the Conservative Government did not bring in an increase Order. The answer is "No". No one can challenge me—

Mr. Kenneth Marks: What grounds has the hon. Member for saying that this would have happened this year under a Conservative Government?

Mr. Temple: It is not necessary to pursue that point, because no one can deny the truth of what I am saying.
The Times said that people were "extremely confused". I would ask hon. Members who have not done so to study this Explanatory Memorandum closely. Appendix A gives the explanation of these figures and refers to November, 1967, prices, June, 1968, prices and November, 1968, prices, and in January the Prime Minister referred to "current prices". It is remarkable that the Minister referred to real terms and I would hardly have thought that he would have the temerity to do so, because the amazing thing is that, in one year, four different levels of prices have been referred to at four different times.
I suggest to the Government that, in a time of inflation like the present, there should be a proper index of local authority constant prices related to a base year, so that one could see exactly what is happening with regard to prices. When I read all this, I thought that there might be a reference to "seasonally adjusted" prices, which would be a new term or art, or possibly to prices "adjusted to normal weather conditions". Of course, it is never normal weather with the present Government, but this type of reference does appear with regard to agricultural support prices. This

reference to different price bases at different periods of the year in different circumstances is alarmingly confusing, and explains why there is such a paucity of hon. Members in the House. These figures are amazingly confusing.
I want now to refer again to the Prime Minister's statement about an increase Order. The chief local authority associations are extremely exercised in their minds about this denial by the Prime Minister of an increase Order. It was again pulling something out of the air, which was extremely irresponsible, since the whole basis of the block grant, which was adopted by the present Government, is that increases in prices, according to paragraph 6 of the White Paper, would be taken into account if those increases, or decreases, were material. Are the local authorities to be assured that the Prime Minister will not do this again? If not, they will be in a very difficult position. How are they to estimate the size and quality of services they will supply if there is a possibility that, if there are increased costs beyond their control, they will get no recompense from the Government?
I turn now to the proportion of Exchequer assistance to local authorities. I expected the Minister to refer to what I call the 55–56–57–58 formula. In other words, he was trying to "kid" the country that this Government were being more and more generous to local authorities. Of course, it needs a very close examination to see that the present Minister is really pulling a very fast one on anyone who reads his speech. In fact, I know from my calculations that 55–56 will be 54–55 and that the 57–58 will not be the percentages the relevant expenditure in the years 1969–70 and 1970–71, it just will not happen.
Those figures are seriously challenged by the local authority associations and myself. The fallacy rests in the base year. The Minister has adopted an entirely false base. He has adopted the estimates for 1967–68 and has "raised" them to 1968 November prices, but what he has failed to do is recognise that the relevant expenditure was far higher in the base year. Why has he not taken the actual figures in 1967–68? In an intervention, I said that 1967–68 expenditure, whether rate borne or grant borne, was public expenditure. Whatever one


says about it, it has gone over the dam now, it is public expenditure and it is certainly quantifiable. Therefore, we could have taken the correct figures for the base year. In those circumstances, his 55–56–57–58 prognostications are entirely vitiated.
I would ask the Minister of State to explain that in great detail, because I believe that the Government are misleading the country on this point—

Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Member is still referring to Appendix A, that starts with the relevant expenditure for 1968–69 and then shows how, by adding 3 per cent. to 1969–70 and 5 per cent. to 1970–71, it comes to the totals given earlier in the White Paper. I cannot find the 1967–68 figures which the hon. Member says have been used as the base date for these calculations.

Mr. Temple: I can assure the hon. Member that the base figures are for 1967–68 and that what I am saying is entirely borne out by the local authority associations. I would not say that unless I had been into it extraordinarily carefully. As the wrong base has been taken, local authorities are overspending the estimates. We should take note of this, because local authorities have to overspend or else they must cut down on their services substantially.
There are two services which are being cut down substantially. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will refer extensively to one, education, so I will be brief on that point, but I will make a more substantial reference to the other service, which is highways.
Appendix B sets out the broad patterns of forecasts of expenditure, by services. I warn the House, however, that, under the block grant system, there is no saying that the relativities within Appendix B will be adhered to by local authorities all over the country. In addition, the whole beauty of the general grant is that it is a non-specific grant given to local authorities to spend in any way they wish. Therefore, although the Minister may think that a certain proportion of the grant will be spent on specific services in specific areas, he may well be proved entirely wrong, because the cuts which he has estimated, particularly on high-

ways, may not be possible, so cuts may have to be made in other spheres.
I am afraid that many local authorities which are Conservative-controlled at present—I am thankful that an enormous number are—will be faced with a very crucial dilemma. They will have the responsibility of making cuts, of cutting back to something near the estimates which they have been given, or, rather, had forced upon them, and they will receive a great deal of opprobrium from the public because they are doing the cutting. The Minister should come clean and tell the country that he is the man who is cutting down on local government expenditure. I would have no quarrel with him if he explained exactly what he is doing. What he is doing is dressing up decreases as increases. This is what the Conservative Party blame him for.
I now pass to highways. In paragraph 21, the Minister tries to come clean. He makes it clear that there will be sharp cuts and goes on:
… the Government's view is that no serious risk is involved".
and the important words are:
in continuing to impose severe restriction … 
"In continuing to impose severe restriction." That will surely mean an extension of existing policy. I am afraid that matters go very much further and deeper than that. The Minister has gone much further than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in his speech on 16th January, 1968, said that there were to be cuts in highway expenditure for 1969–70. He did not say anything about 1970–71. The Minister has gone beyond this and imposed cuts in highway expenditure for 1970–71. It is the extension of these cuts to which I draw attention.
I have had a very interesting paper sent to me by the Treasurer of the Somerset County Council. He was one of the chief negotiators on behalf of the County Councils Association. I raised one point about loan expenditure when the Minister was speaking. I quote now from figures which were put before the joint negotiators by the Ministry of Transport, so the Minister cannot complain that I am using figures from local authorities. These I believe, are all at November, 1968, prices. The actual expenditure on highways for 1967–68, in November, 1968,


terms, is said to be £190 million, whereas the figure postulated for 1970–71 is £191 million—almost identical.
Within that particular figure there is a loan charge in 1967–68 of £24 million, but the loan charge by 1970–71 has gone up to £36 million. In 1970–71, there will be £10 million less in real terms, available for highways than there was three years before. If that is not a cut-back I should like to know what is. I hope that the Minister of State will re-emphasise her determination to exercise that cut back so that local authorities, in cutting back, may let the public know exactly where the responsibility lies. Perhaps the public will remember that they have never paid more in motor taxation than they are paying now, and have never got less value for it.
I want to mention a figure given to me about the impact of this cut in expenditure. It has been estimated in certain circles that there will be a cutback of 15 per cent. The Treasurer to the Somerset County Council says that the cut-back will be nearer 21 per cent. than 15 per cent. by 1970–71. I re-emphasise the extreme severity of the cuts being imposed by this Government. I do not complain about that, what I do complain about is that these figures have been drawn out of the air, and have no particular relevance to the actual needs of these services.
I want to draw attention to the effect on the countryside. I live in the countryside. I know the traffic on country roads and realise that impact that these cuts will have. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is trying hard for a big expansion in agricultural output. If that succeeds and more and more heavy traffic is put onto roads of lesser importance—the roads which are to bear the biggest cuts in the Minister's proposals—how will the Minister of Agriculture react? I wonder whether he has even thought about it? I wonder whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government knows the amount of traffic using roads of lesser importance? This is just another example of this Government being entirely out of touch with the realities of the situation in the countryside.
I know, as The Times leader says today, that this country is in an abominable mess. But when a country is in such

a mess, why experiment with education or in other ways? I would like to have seen the Minister of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee), here. The hon. Lady is encouraging the Greater London Council to build more museums and more art galleries. She has given tremendous encouragement to my own City of Chester to build a civic theatre. Is this a very good type of expenditure to encourage at present, when there is this tremendous shortage of money for public expenditure of a vital nature?
I came in today towards the end of Question Time, when British Standard Time was being discussed. Recently I picked up a cutting from the Liverpool Echo which gave the cost of this for the ratepayers of the City of Chester. The amazing thing is that the ratepayers there would have to pay £3,000 in order to adjust the time switches to the new British Standard Time or nearly £1,000 per annum for full lighting—they wisely opted for the latter. This is an example of the complete confusion existing in the Government at present. The prime Minister, answering a Question last week, is reported in The Times of December 6th as saying that there would be an early re-assessment of this matter. In other words, he indicated that the local authorities, although many had this obligation of changing their time switches, may well have further costs imposed of changing them back if a reassessment is made and the system changed.

Mr. J. T. Price: rose —

Mr. Temple: Mr. Speaker's eye is on me. I am sorry, I cannot give way.

Mr. Price: Mr. Price With great respect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way—

Mr. Temple: All right, if you wish.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given way.

Mr. Price: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised a matter which was the subject of discussion at Question Time—British Standard Time. The mood of the House then was that, if a mistake had been


made, it will be considered. If he is to hurl this, together with his other missiles, at the Government, the British Standard Time Act was adopted by—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I can anticipate the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). We cannot discuss British Summer Time or British Standard Time in this debate. All the hon. Gentleman can do is refer to the cost of it.

Mr. Price: Joint responsibility.

Mr. Temple: That is exactly what I was doing. As Mr. Deputy-Speaker saved me from irrelevancies from the other side of the House earlier, you have saved me now from this irrelevancy.
I am certain that what the Government should have done was to have gone through all the services extremely carefully, and decided which were essential and which were less essential. Art galleries and museums are hardly essential, when we are in the middle of the greatest financial crisis this country has ever faced. The Government should have imposed cuts in specific areas and made it quite clear they were imposing them. I said that the significant thing was that we had been asked what is Conservative Party policy. This Government are very near the end of the road, and that is why they are interested in Conservative policy for local government finance.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I have not been a Member of this House for as long as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple). Unlike him I do not intend to join in the abuse and innuendo with which he supported his speech, and which seems to be the stock part of most speeches from the benches opposite. May I preface my remarks by saying how much I regret that the Government have not been able to do a great deal more for local government and all its services this year.
I know from experience that there are a great many things that people in local government wanted to do, and that there are many extra things which they will not be able to do. This is a matter of

great regret. I also realise that, during the past few years, the Government have helped local authorities—and I speak as one who was a member of a local authority before entering the House—a tremendous amount. Grants from the Government in 1963–64 to the administrative County of Lancashire in which I live totalled £42 million. This year the figure was £69 million and next year it will be something like £74 million.
This is a vast increase, and I suspect that it is this kind of increase which so worried the Leader of the Opposition in his speech last Monday. If I look at my smaller urban districts, I see that the one in which I live, Denton, received £69,000 in 1963–64 and £162,000 last year. These are vast increases in Government help, far greater than any price increases and far greater than the cost of any of the new tasks which have been placed on local Government. There has been real and genuine help.
I am reminded, when listening to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that these are not the first restrictions to be placed on local government spending. Within my experience of these matters I recall the names of Horsbrugh, Eccles, Thorneycroft and Selwyn Lloyd. None of those names brings joy to anyone who is interested in the progress of local government. They demanded real cuts, not restrictions in growth.
Since coming to this House I have been puzzled by the diversity of opinion between the Conservative Party in Parliament and Conservatives in local government. I am now becoming used to these somersaults. In local government I always found that Conservative councillors throughout the year would demand that more money be spent on this, that and the other—a park in one ward and a library in another; but not often libraries—and then, at the end of the year, when a vast rate increase would be required to accede to their claims, they would demand a rate reduction.
It was difficult for me to explain to Conservative councillors the meaning of a working balance. They could not grasp that that money was available for an emergency or to help the treasurer over the initial months of the year, but was not a sum which would be raided each year. At that time I was teaching backward children in school. I found it easier


to explain these matters to them than to local Conservative councillors. At least the children could accept that if every item in a sum was enlarged, the total came to more than it was originally. I could never get my local council colleagues to accept that.
The same thing has happened in my first year in Parliament. Day after day at Question Time—and I have gone out of my way to be present at a great many of them—I have heard demands for increased expenditure on virtually everything in every constituency. At the same time, the Front Bench opposite has been demanding cuts in public expenditure. There is obviously now a great difference of opinion between Conservative thinking in Parliament and in the country. Whereas the Leader of the Opposition is demanding huge cuts in public expenditure, local Conservative councillors, for the first time in my experience, are saying, "We want to spend more but they will not let us." This is sheer hypocrisy.
A month before I came to this House—that was before devaluation and before the restrictions imposed by the present Government—I was asked as a local headmaster to attend a meeting to be addressed by the Chief Education Officer of the City of Manchester. He wanted our opinion about how he could achieve what the newly-elected Conservative Council was demanding, which was a 2½ per cent. cut in the expenditure of council departments not in the following year but in the current year. In other words, they wanted to do it in six months, and that included making severe cuts in the education system of that City. Some of the nastiest bits of welfare cuts I have come across took place last year in Manchester, and that was long before these restrictions were being demanded by the Government.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the opprobrium which will descend on Conservative-controlled councils, they should remind us that they have made cuts where they should not have been made and have raided the balances of their rate funds to achieve the cuts which they have promised. It is, therefore, hypocritical of Conservative councillors to talk of wanting to carry out great measures when their party in Parliament is calling for drastic cuts.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester talked about essential and inessential services. I believe that we should spend more on education and other aspects of local government and less on some private forms of expenditure that now take place. This is the great difference between the parties. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will have an opportunity of explaining in their constituencies in the next few months how much they feel about expenditure on education. The basis of the negotiations for the rate support grant was that education spending would go up by 3¾ per cent. in real terms. But that was only a guideline. The Government cannot force local councils to increase their spending on education. I hope that all hon. Members will do their best to see that councils spend the maximum on education and not cut it below what the Government have recommended in that guideline.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: As the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said, there is an element of inconsistency, not only between what is said by Conservatives in this House and Conservative councillors, but between what is said by Conservative hon. Members from one debate to another. It would be helpful if, when winding-up the debate, the Conservative spokesman would clarify Tory policy on this matter. Do the Tories wish to increase expenditure by local authorities? If so, in what respects, and would they increase the grant under this Order? If they would not increase local authority expenditure, where would they have made the cuts which must be made in this sector?
It is meaningless to talk about overall figures when one is not clear about the base date calculation. This particularly applies to statistical arguments of the type used by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). Although the hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on these matters and has discussed them with the local authority associations, it does not particularly help the House to arrive at a sensible conclusion if one is speaking all the time of generalities and not of the precise services which are being financed by this money.
I have in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Chester about


education. It would be interesting to discover whether local education authorities are able to sustain all the tasks which parents and teachers would like them to undertake with expenditure at about its present level, or whether, as a result of the grant having been fixed at a level which is only 3 per cent. larger in real terms than it was last year, some of their plans will have to be deferred.
This matter is of particular interest to me because we had what I thought was a very good scheme for the elimination of selective secondary education in my borough. It was known as the Wellbourne Plan because it was devised by Mr. Well-bourne who was the Chief Education Officer of the London Borough of Bromley. The Conservative Council decided that the implementation of that scheme had to be deferred because, we were told, sufficient money was not available from the Government to implement it.
There is confusion among parents and teachers in my constituency—this confusion extends to the L.E.A.—about who is right in this matter. I would be grateful if the Minister would deal with this issue in detail because it is a problem which affects not only my L.E.A. but which has been encountered in many other parts of the country where Conservative-controlled authorities are trying to shift all the blame on to the central Government for the slowing-down in the elimination of selection procedures at the age of 11.
There is always the suspicion that Conservative councils are trying to put off the introduction of these new schemes until, as they hope, the Labour Government are swept out and a right-wing Conservative Government are in power so that the mechanism of selection at age 11, which most of us now deplore, may be reintroduced. Alternatively, schemes which are generally considered by L.E.A.s to be reasonable for implementation are being delayed so that the tripartite system may return. I refer to the system under which technical schools, secondary moderns and grammar schools compete with each other, often leading to inequities among children who are placed in one or other of the schools at 11 and are classified at that age for the rest of their school lives.
This is such an important matter, not just for 1969–70 but for the future of our children that I trust that the Minister will answer this point in considerable detail when she replies to the debate. I hope that this will not be treated as a purely party matter. Let us get at the figures related to this item, and not have so much argument on general principle and on how the rate support grants are calculated.
It is rather a long time since the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is now Secretary of State for Social Services, spoke of rating policies as being
… interim devices designed to shore up this ancient monument which should not have been allowed to survive from the reign of Elizabeth I into that of Elizabeth II but which must now be prevented from collapsing altogether until we have had time to organise a planned operation for first demolishing rates and then replacing the system with a new local tax, fair, intelligible and capable of being administered reasonably efficiently—three conditions on which rates lamentably fail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1965; Vol 722, c. 39.]
That speech was made at the end of 1965, and yet here we are, at the end of 1968, still taking steps to shore up the system as far ahead as 1971, and perhaps still further, because it will take time to consider the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government and design new methods of financing local government expenditure.
The problem seems somehow to have lost that sense of urgency which the right hon. Gentleman felt when he was at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I do not know whether or not that is fair criticism, but however much one approves things like the 5d. a year increase which we are giving to domestic ratepayers, these stopgap measures cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. At one time there was a fear that the extra 5d. would end in 1969, but we are very glad to hear that that is not to be the case but that we are going to 1s. 3d. and, I think to 1s. 8d. in 1970–71, as has been mentioned in the White Paper.
But where do we draw the line? The hon. Member for the City of Chester thinks that after an election it might be convenient for the incoming Government, perhaps, to say that the amount was large enough, and to keep it at the then level. He is probably right in believing


that whether a Conservative Government or a Labour Government take over this is what will happen if we have not by then reformed the system of financing local government expenditure, and that for the years after the end of period mentioned in the White Paper the domestic ratepayer will find himself paying an increasing share of the burden.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) referred to the Caravan Sites Act. This Measure was welcomed by the Government and by hon. Members on this side, but Part II, which provides for the establishment of sites for gipsies by local authorities in England and Wales, has not yet been brought into operation because an Order is necessary. The Minister has not yet made an Order, in spite of considerable pressure brought to bear on him in the House, and in discussions and correspondence with local authorities and the Gipsy Council strongly urging him to introduce Part II without delay.
When I wrote to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the end of September, he replied—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot discuss in detail the need to implement Part II of the Caravan Sites Act now. If it is not in the Rate Support Grant Order it is not in.

Mr. Lubbock: I think that you will understand the relevance of this to the Order we are discussing, Mr. Speaker, when I have given the following quotation from the Joint Parliament Secretary's answer to my letter:
I can only repeat that we are at present reluctant to impose a fresh statutory burden on local authorities but that we shall bring Part II of the Act into operation as soon as conditions permit.
The Minister is there making a purely financial argument against the introduction of Part II. He is arguing only on the additional money burden on local authorities if they are made to construct these sites and not allowed to continue on a voluntary basis—

Mr. Temple: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I appreciate the great importance of the sites. Can he tell me whether expenditure under this head would rank as relevant expenditure for grant?

Mr. Lubbock: Yes. That was made quite clear by the Minister in Committee.
The hon. Member will therefore agree that what I say is relevant. Yet when the Minister issued a circular after the Caravan Sites Act was passed he said that applications for loan sanctions made to him by local authorities would be sympathetically entertained. I do not know that I have the exact phraseology, but that was the gist, and I welcomed the fact that he could go as far.
My point is that as a result of failure to implement Part II, local authorities are incurring very substantial expenditure on moving gipsies from unauthorised sites, on prosecuting them before the courts under the Highways Act, 1959, and other provisions, and in some cases on appointing full-time staff to do nothing but harass gipsies and force them to move from place to place. As long as implementation is only a voluntary basis, none of the local authorities wants to be the first.
I give as an example a local authority in the Midlands which, writing to the hon. Member who represents the constituency, stated:
The Council realise that eviction does not solve the problem and last year they agreed to provide a properly equipped site on an experimental basis provided other local authorities in the area would do the same. Some Councils did not agree with this prolicy and not unnaturally the Borough decided they were not prepared to act in isolation.
This has been the problem all the way through, as I am sure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do. No local authority wants to take the initiative, lest it should have to take an unfair share of the rate burden. The Gipsy Council has calculated that the whole amount of spending by authorities on the purposes I have mentioned is about £100,000 a month, which is far more than it would cost to start establishing sites. Nor would this expenditure fall entirely within 1969–70, or even 1970–71—the years covered by the Order. It will take councils some time to find suitable sites, to make plans for their equipment, to hear any objections that may be submitted under the Act. To go through all the statutory procedures may, in some cases, take three or four years. Therefore, were the Minister to accept my argument, local authorities would not be asked to do this all at once.
Rent increases are of tremendous importance. As will have been apparent from my earlier intervention, I think that


the Government were right in accepting the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and limiting the average increase in rents to 7s. 6d., with a maximum on any one dwelling—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The broad question of housing policy is outside the Order we are discussing.

Mr. Lubbock: I know, Mr. Speaker, but the point that has been made when Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair was that the Government should not have restricted the increase because to the extent that they have done so the money has had to come from the ratepayers. That point was made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and by one of his colleagues as well. This is a financial aspect from the point of view of local ratepayers.
An increase of even 10s. can be quite a substantial burden for some local authority tenants at a time when they are facing large increases for gas, electricity, solid fuel, and fares to work. It was, therefore, quite right, after taking all these factors into consideration, that the National Board for Prices and Incomes should make the recommendation, and it was right that the Minister should agree with it. Certain local authorities, however, get round the restrictions by increasing the charges which they make for other things. If the rent for a dwelling itself can be increased by only 7s. 6d. a week, such an authority will charge 3s. extra for the coal shed, or 1s. 6d. more for the pram shed and so get round the spirit of the restrictions which have been imposed. The Minister should look carefully at what is being done by Greater London Council, and maybe other Conservative-controlled authorities.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) addressed the Chair.

Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) tell the House whether he believes that if rents are not at economic levels the ratepayer should bear the deficit, not that there should be an increase in rents?

Mr. Lubbock: I believe that ultimately rents have to be brought to a level at which they would be no charge on the rate fund. Where the existing level of rents falls short of that ideal we should not bring them up all at once to the target but should approach it gradually over a number of years so that the tenant of Greater London Council, or whoever he may be, does not suddenly find himself so much worse off.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): Is it not a fact that the rent policy of the Greater London Council phases necessary increases in rents over three years?

Mr. Lubbock: I referred to the intention before the reference was made to the Prices and Incomes Board. Those rents would have equated to the fair rent under the Act of 1965—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we might return from Greater London Council to the rate support grant we are discussing.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I might say that the increases were as large as 39s. 6d.
I think the Government should encourage local authorities to get on with family planning services. This is a voluntary scheme and some local authorities have not been very quick to use the powers given them under the Act, but we should take account of savings which could be made in other directions as a result of a reduction in the birthrate. Generally local authorities would find this a very good investment. I am looking at it only from a financial point of view and in the circumstances of this debate I can talk only about the amount of money involved, not the social benefits which such a policy would provide. The family planning service could be an enormous benefit and investment for the country. It is a great pity that the provision of this service was not made mandatory.
I would hesitate to do anything which would jeopardise the increase in these services because of the difficulties which we at present face. Always when we have a financial crisis of this kind and when we are talking of matters such as the Basle discussion—as we were when you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker—we tend to take short-term measures to put things right. That is the wrong approach. We have to make economies in local


government planning as part of general policy, but to cut down on essential services such as those I have mentioned, particularly education, for the sake of some short-term pleasure which it may give to the gnomes of Zurich, or even the gnomes of London, would be a grave and colossal mistake.
I hope that the Minister has not gone too far and I call on the right hon. Lady when she replies to the debate to justify the figures which have been given.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: Mr. Speaker. I wish to set your mind at rest by saying that I have no intention of making a long intervention. I listened with close attention to the vigorous speech made by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) who unfortunately has now left the Chamber. It is not discourtesy on my part to refer to some of the things he said because he has the same opportunity as any of us to remain in the Chamber after taking part in the debate.
The hon. Member is well informed on matters of local government finance. It was not only a vigorous, but in some ways a swashbuckling and irresponsible speech that he made. I am well acquainted with the asperities of politics and I know that at times like this people are willing to make the maximum degree of party capital out of a situation when it appears justified by events but I am a little dismayed by the spectacle of senior hon. Members who at least know the rules and the atmosphere in which we operate and the general kind of toleration which exists between us that they should take an occasion like this to talk with two voices.
Every time I come into this House—and I am a pretty regular attender and try to behave myself as well as nature allows—I hear a constant attack from hon. Members opposite on the Front and the rear benches denouncing the Government for reckless public expenditure, for over-spending the Budget and overspending in every direction. I am being fair; this is the general tenor of the criticism which is launched at us. Then as soon as hon. Members opposite take part in a debate such as this when the Minister has brought forward a rational plan to meet the situation they denounce

him for denying to local authorities constant expansion in fields which it is not possible to expand in the present financial situation.
I hesitate to use such a strong word as hypocrisy but this is political gamesmanship of the basest kind. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has his usual sweet smile but although hon. Members opposite sustain this kind of claptrap in these debates it would be better suited to a meeting of Tory women in the country than in this House. They talk with two voices. They denounce the Government for being reckless spendthrifts yet they denounce the Government for putting a little brake on the machine at a time when it needs to be put on.
Without getting myself out of order I wish to look at the situation over local government finance. There is a very complicated formula for calculating the block grant. The hon. Member for City of Chester did well to say that these were very complicated matters and that it was difficult to make them comprehensible to the man in the street. The formula for calculating the block grant is almost as complex as that for calculating the cost of living index. We would not spread any enlightenment in the debate by going into that and it would take a long time. But in putting these proposals before the House the Minister has linked with them advice to local authorities to be a little more generous to education because our forward-looking education system requires a great deal to be done, and there are also other thing which may not be so essential.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), also a great authority on these matters, who has often entertained us and sometimes, I say with respect, bored us by going too closely into them, knows perfectly well that these are permissive powers for local authorities and that a forward-looking local authority can place emphasis where is is most needed—in this case, on education—if there is a tightening up of Government purse strings.
I say in all sincerity to the Minister, who has a very difficult wicket tonight it may be, that I am all in favour of the Government tightening up on public expenditure even if I have to go into the


country and explain why the Government are doing it. Our country cannot continue indefinitely living beyond its means. That is something that I have never been afraid of saying in the country or the House. Therefore, I plead with hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that this is a proper occasion to fire a few spent bullets at the Government on this subject to be a little consistent. If the Government show that they are willing to put a brake on, even on local authority finance, they should be supported and not opposed.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Crosby, know perfectly well that, with our present local government set-up, if no additional expenditure were involved in new projects, there would be a built-in escalator of about 8 per cent. per year increase in the normal rate of growth of Government expenditure. Hon. Members like my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks)—who has great experience of local government—know perfectly well from their practical experience of life and not from any theoretical reading of books that this situation faces any Government, whether they bear a Labour or Conservative label.
There is one thing that I regretted during the years when the Labour Party was in opposition. During the 13 years when I sat on the other side of the House there were colleagues of mine, many of them gone now, who would make all kinds of irresponsible speeches because they had not the responsibility of government, and some of them have lived to regret them. I believe that if a person sits in this House he has a constitutional duty to be as responsible in Opposition as in the Government, because we are all working for our dear country and so ought to be honest about it. But I will not labour that point.
In 1957 I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Rating and Valuation Bill for several months. The debates were led by the noble Lord who was then Mr. Henry Brooke, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government. That Bill completely changed the valuation basis on which

rates were levied. It revalued the basis on which we carried out the archaic system of levying rates, which I have often condemned, and do not regret having done so. I said on a number of occasions in those debates that the effect of the Measure that the Conservative Government were introducing would be to increase the rateable values of domestic houses by about 300 per cent. I was told by the then Minister that I was a wild alarmist and grossly exaggerating the situation. But it was as a result of what took place in that Committee that even the Tory Government had to build into the Act a provision, after a lapse of four years, to give some rate relief to those who were being most hard hit by the new basis of assessment.
The Measure has had a spectacular effect on the rates. The rateable value went up 300 per cent., as I had forecast—more than that in some authorities, but the average was 300 per cent.—and the rates poundage came down in some authorities. But, with the new basis of rating 300 per cent. higher than under the old system, the rate poundage crept up year after year until it is now reaching the same level as in those earlier days.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Higher in some cases.

Mr. Price: Yes, higher in some cases. This is what has been going on. The public have short memories and the House contains a great many hon. Members who have no experience of what happened at that time, have not lived with the situation and are able to make irresponsible speeches of the type that we sometimes hear. This is a natural growth of public expenditure because of a number of factors.
Public authorities receive a block grant weighted for many factors, including special needs. Authorities with great housing needs perhaps receive far more generous treatment than those with less urgent housing need. The present Government, with all their faults—I have not been uncritical of the Government, and am not standing here in a white sheet; I have often said things critical of the Government that I support—have done more to assist with the re-housing of our people in the last four years than has been done at any time in our history.
[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Crosby wants to deny or challenge what I am saying, I shall willingly give way to him.

Mr. Graham Page: I should be glad to do so, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker would call me to order if I went into the figures here and now.

Mr. Price: I do not know. Mr. Speaker is very reasonable as a rule. I was giving the hon. Member an opportunity, since his face seemed to indicate dissent from what I was saying—it was the usual courtesy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) must not tempt the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to get out of order.

Mr. Price: That was very wrong of me, Mr. Speaker, but hon. Members opposite often tempt me—I like to be fair-minded about these things—by saying things with which I disagree strongly, and I often resist temptation because there can be no virtue except in the presence of temptation.
I wonder how many hon. Members realise how uneven the application of even the block grants is between larger authorities and smaller authorities. I represent a number of small townships in Lancashire spread over a vast area of the countryside surrounding the old Wigan coal basin. Recently my right hon. Friend, for reasons which he will probably be able to sustain in the debate, has placed restrictions not only in the way indicated tonight because of the national position, but on the facilities available to small local authorities for providing housing loans to ratepayers who need them. No building society, for example, is interested in granting a housing loan on a very old house. Many local authorities like those that I represent are not getting any grant for this purpose and are being seriously embarrassed by my right hon. Friend's decision.
But, having made that one critical reference—in view of my previous remarks, I think I am justified in doing that, because I am supporting the Government up to the hilt—I hope that the House will understand that many of the issues with which we are dealing tonight are not strictly party issues at

all. It would greatly assist us both here and in the country in getting the public to support whatever Government are in power in the job of bringing this old country out of debt if we recognise that it may have to be done at the expense of some treasured forward moves. I am all in favour of getting the country out of debt first, and I shall continue to be so.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I am sure that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely, though I shall come back later on to one or two of the points which he made.
Having studied the Minister's Report and the Order carefully and having listened attentively to the debate, I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that neither the Minister nor a good many hon. Members opposite understand how local authorities manage their finances or what they are being asked to do under the Order. The crux of the matter is to be found in the Report. The estimates from 1967–68 to 1970–71 showed an expansion of 6 per cent. each year, and now the expansion is to be halved, to 3 per cent. How are local authorities to do it? Are standards to be reduced? The Minister said that representations had already been made by local authorities about the difficulty of keeping within the limit which he has set, but he has not explained how they should do it, except by such expedients as incentive bonus schemes. Efficient authorities already have such schemes. How can they halve the rate of expansion overnight? This is what they are asked to do, and it is quite unrealistic.
The most important items of expansion are items of capital expenditure. On the whole, only small projects come out of revenue. Most projects are financed out of capital, and they are phased over three to five years. For example, when an old people's home is first projected, the expenses and loan charges are low, being confined almost entirely to the purchase of the site. They rise quickly when building starts, and they jump quickly again on completion for furnishing, and at the same time the running expenses come in.
A new old people's home is to be opened in Portsmouth next year. What do we do about it? Do we stop it? Do we bear the loan charges and cost of deterioration and disappoint the old people? Obviously, we must go ahead and open it. There is a further example in Portsmouth. A new drainage system is being put in. That system is essential if we are to go on building houses, for without it we can do little more. The system was started three or four years ago, and it is to be finished next year or the year after. Again, what do we do about it? Do we stop it and compensate the contractors? We must have the houses, so we must carry on. I could cite many other examples.
Last September, the finance and general purposes committee of the Portsmouth City Council carried out an exercise to estimate expenditure next year. Taking into account all the wage increases and other rising costs then known, and assuming that capital expenditure authorised would continue but no new capital expenditure would be started after 1st April, the calculations showed a rise of 5·6 per cent.
I cannot reconcile the figures given by the Minister today with what, I understand, he has told local authorities, namely, that he would allow a 3 per cent. expansion, while telling them also to make some provision for inflation, which he puts at no less than 3·6 per cent. per annum. It seemed reasonable to the Portsmouth City Council to add that figure of 6·6 per cent. to the previous figure I have mentioned of 5·6 per cent., making a total increase for next year of 12·2 per cent. I hasten to add, perhaps to forestall the Minister, that, obviously, some of the figures in the 5·6 per cent. and the 3·6 per cent. would be the same. However, we know also from experience of the past few years that the figure for inflation may well be too low. So the Portsmouth City Council has suggested in its calculations a figure of 12 per cent.
If the Corporation allows expenditure to rise by 12 per cent., a large part of that increase will not attract rate support grant, and the cost to the rates is estimated to be equivalent to a rate increase of no less than 1s. 2d. in the pound. Thus, in considering the estimates for next year, the council will have many

difficult decisions to make. I know from personal experience the difficulty of cutting back normal increases, but to cut a further 1s. 2d. will be nearly impossible. It seems that room for manoeuvre in cutting is extremely limited. Perhaps it will fall on parks, open spaces and other amenities, road repairs, maintenance of schools and public buildings.
I draw to the Minister's attention the unfairness in operation of the education supplement and the resources element. These affect Portsmouth and, I am sure, many other towns and cities. Our difficulties in both stem from the same factors—rebuilding and redevelopment due to war damage, and slum clearance, to a lower density and higher standards, and tightly drawn boundaries. These problems were recognised as far back as 1944 when the city bought a large estate outside its boundaries. Portsmouth has built 20,000 houses since the war, 10,000 within its boundaries and 10,000 outside. The dockyard and the navy together form the biggest employer, and it seemed reasonable to move younger people outside the city and keep the older ones near their work, their friends and their environment. This has meant that dormitory areas with young families are outside the boundaries, with the result that we suffer under the education supplement arrangement.
Due to the rebuilding of the city shopping centres and houses to modern standards, thus reducing the population, the rateable value per head has risen, but, while dockyard wages remain low, the resources formula shows that Portsmouth is getting richer—which is a complete fallacy. The education supplement figures also show how badly we are hit. Portsmouth, with 28,600 children, attracted £385,000 in grant last year, whereas Southampton, with 35,800 children, attracted £1,489,000, or, £1,100,000 more for only 7,000 children. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if I suggested that Southampton's figure should be reduced, you would rule me out of order. I am suggesting only that Portsmouth's figure be increased.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker is impartial. He cannot defend even his own constituency in debate.

Mr. Pink: I am pleased to know that the adjustments next year will mean an


extra £40,000 or thereabouts for Portsmouth, equal to about a 1d. rate. I presume that Southampton also will have more, so, probably, the differential will be maintained.
I ask the Minister to have a reappraisal of the amount which he is proposing in the light of what I have said, the figures which I have given and the difficulties which I have outlined, difficulties which will affect all local authorities. T hope that he will be able to help cities such as Portsmouth, perhaps by adjusting the grant formula, perhaps by introducing a supplemental balancing grant, perhaps by considering the question of boundaries.
There seems no doubt whatever that rates will go up next year. The Lord Mayor of Portsmouth has already forecast an increase for Portsmouth of up to 2s. The Government must bear responsibility for a large proportion of the increases which come next year.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I want to turn from the two main themes in the debate—the question of the amount of finance available for local government services and the standard of services—to an issue which I believe to be of great significance: the apparent deliberate policy of the Government to shift expenditure from the Exchequer on to local rates. This is one of the great difficulties that local authorities will face.
There are two points in support of my contention: local authorities are receiving no recoupment of excess expenditure for the current year, and there has been no increased grant Order for the period November, 1967, to March next year.
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Report says that the Minister is required to take account of
the current levels of prices, costs and remuneration, any future variation in that level which can be foreseen … ".
The great difficulty which the Government have faced over recent years is that many of the increases have been quite unpredictable because of the Government's past and present performance. This flows from the collapse of their economic policies. The admission of a tremendous amount of the increased expenditure is contained in Appendix A of the Minister's Report, which shows

that between June and November this year the cost of local government services rose by no less than £472 million. That is an average of about £10 million a month which local authorities have had to make good from their own resources or have had to meet with economies in their services. We earlier discussed the effect of the implementation of comprehensive education, and the fact that there has been nothing to meet the added loan charges and higher expenses that flow from it.
Mr. Brian MacArthur wrote in The Times of 5th December:
Some claim that there will be a decline in educational standards for the first time for more than 20 years. Over the past 10 years, they point out, the average annual increase in spending on education has been 9 per cent. This has been cut to less than 4 per cent.
That is evidence of a cut in the education service. This week's Time Education Supplement, referring to the matter we are discussing under the heading "A very bad year", says that the Order
… spells out the Government's continuing assumption, which has been echoed frequently in Mr. Short's speeches, that the main-stream of education will not suffer. How soon, one wonders, will they have to eat their words?
That is independent evidence of an immediate cut in the standard of education and the prospect of substantial cuts in the future.
The Minister has refused to accept local authority estimates. This must lead to cuts in standards below the present minimum, or a substantial increase in rates.
I know that the question of council house rents is outside the Order, but the Government's proposals and their holding back of the level of local authority rents are having a substantial effect on the whole question of the rate levy for this and subsequent years. Some rate increases could have been offset by allowing council house rents to rise, but under Section 10 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, the Government reduced the rent increases of no fewer than 52 authorities, affecting well over 500,000 houses, and rejected the rent increases of 59 local authorities, involving over 300,000 houses.
The G.L.C. estimates that as a result ratepayers in its area will have to pay an extra £4 million that would otherwise


have been paid by council tenants. I shall not go into the question of rent or rate rebate schemes for tenants, because that would be outside the subject matter of our discussion. But all subsidised tenants are benefiting at the cost of the ratepayer under those Government arrangements, which is contrary to paragraph 3 of Circular 46/67. I had the Minister's assurance on 3rd December that that was still the Government's policy.
What are the inconsistencies we face under the financial policies that will flow from the Order? The Government are allowing crisis and panic measures to increase local government costs whilst they are making local authorities economise, very often in the departments which are increasing their services. This is a clear indication of the shift in expenditure from the Exchequer to the ratepayer, who will no doubt have to pay substantially increased rates next year and in subsequent years. The keeping down of council house rents has taken revenue from the local authorities.
That is the situation that local government and the ratepayer face. It could jeopardise the structure and standard of local government services. These circumstances stem directly from excessive expenditure in other sections of the economy and the total failure of the Government's economic policies. The Government must face reality. The growth of expenditure allowed is not adequate to avoid cuts in services. They will regret not being honest with the country in setting out their purposes in the proposals before us.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I congratulate the Minister on his skill in introducing the Order so quickly, there being just three working days between his Report being issued and our debate. That makes it very difficult for hon. Members to find out just how the Order will affect their constituencies.
Apart from that, I can find little on which to congratulate the Minister. We are granting no less than 5 per cent. of the gross national product, yet few hon. Members are in a position to take part in the debate. We are discussing very

nearly 10 per cent. of the expenditure of the gross national product in a background of great anxiety that there may be substantial rate rises. They have been forecast by some of my hon. Friends.
Some people cannot afford substantial rate increases, even remembering the domestic element in the rate support grant, which cushions them to some extent. Equally, there is desperate anxiety that services should be preserved. This is where we need a firm line from the Government. I recognise their dilemma. They need to restrict their spending. This is because we have an expanding population but not an expanding national income. What should the Government do? Should they increase taxation and rates in order to maintain services or should they order cuts? I accuse the Government of failing to face the situation.
I do not believe that the Government were honest in the White Paper. They would have been honest if there had been a "backs to the wall" feeling about it. They should have said, "We are in a financial jam and everyone must make sacrifies. Ten per cent. of the national income is being taken this way and it must be reduced". Had the Government said that, I believe that there would have been tremendous response from the country.
Instead, the White Paper suggests that everything is splendid, that there will be no substantial cuts anywhere and that no one need worry. What do the Government mean? If there are not to be cuts, it means that the rates have to go up. The Government have said this. Paragraph 15 of the White Paper, dealing with education, says:
The expenditure envisaged in education allows in full for the expected increases in the numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools … It takes account of … the expected increase in the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools, which should make possible some improvement in staffing standards.
It sounds splendid and suggests that everything will go well.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us the national position, but in Herefordshire the number of children entering primary and secondary schools next year will increase by 3 per cent. That does not automatically mean an increase of 3 per cent. in expenditure. The increase in expenditure will be substantially


more because it is much more expensive to provide a new place than to maintain an old one. The standards are higher and debt charges are much higher. I suggest that a 3 per cent. increase in the number of children probably means a 6 per cent. increase in expenditure in order simply to stand still.
Then there are teachers' salaries. An increase is due there which, I am told, will represent about 1 per cent. of the total education bill in Herefordshire. In addition, there is the improvement of staffing standards, mentioned in the White Paper. I imagine that this means full employment of all teachers available, including part-time teachers. If it does not mean that, I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us what it does mean. This again means an increase on the education bill of about half of 1 per cent.
All this means that an increase of about 7½ per cent. is required for Herefordshire's education bill in merely to cope with the growing number of children and with modest improvements in staffing ratios. However, instead of 7½ per cent., it is to get only 3·4 per cent. I do not understand what is intended in education. Do the Government intend that there shall be cuts elsewhere in order to keep up the standards of education, or do they really believe that the average national increase of 3¾ per cent. will be enough to meet the difficulties?
Herefordshire is generally saved by the bell over rates and next year we shall have a windfall through the increase in the needs element which has been effected by the Minister at the expense of the resources element. This will benefit Herefordshire so that, for that one year, we are hoping that we will not have to have substantial rate increases. But that is only for one year. For the following year, there must be a considerable rate increase.
I turn now to roads. One point not yet brought out is that, while it is intended to cut road maintenance for a further two years, this will add up to a total of four years. Is it feasible? Is it not perhaps a false economy, particularly in urban areas, where roads receive a heavy pounding and where, if there is failure to maintain over a period of four years, they will probably have to be remade at much greater expense?
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned the Caravan Sites Act and said that he had been told that Section 2 will not be introduced as hoped because the Government are worried about the expenditure involved. Is that expenditure included in the forecast for 1969–70? If it has not been included, do the Government intend to introduce a supplementary order in to meet a proportion of the considerable expenditure which will fall on the local authorities when the Act comes into operation? I do not believe that the Government intend to put off the operation of the Act indefinitely.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was possible to revise the distribution formula for the needs element but said that he had not yet done so and did not wish to do so because, if he did, it would not be possible to do it for another four years. Nevertheless, as he pointed out, he has made changes in the education formula. When he considers the distribution formula, I urge him to consider the element of expanding population. I have raised this matter time and again, and I wish the Government would realise that an area with an expanding population needs extra help from the Government, because expenditure has to be put into the infrastructure whereas the rateable value increase which will ultimately come from that expanding population does not accrue in time. There is thus considerable expenditure in the early years with an expanding population. The Government have never accepted this. Indeed, the Conservative Government were equally remiss about it. But, in the light of the experience of expanding populations that we now have, it is time the Government took account of this factor.
The demand for local government services, without cuts, is rising by about 6 per cent. per year. There is a clear need for a statement of Government policy. In the light of the economic crisis, what do they want? Do they want to maintain services, which involves an expansion of expenditure, in which case, as they have not increased the rate support grant by the necessary 6 per cent., rates must rise? Do they wish the total volume of local authority expenditure provided by both rates and rate support grant to rise by 6 per cent. a year, or to be contained by 3 per cent. a year? I cannot discover


this from the White Paper and we are entitled to this information.
It is for the Government, not the Opposition, to say which services should continue to expand and in which there should be cuts. If there are to be cuts, the Government must provide a White Paper which says what the cuts are to be, and the country will face them. At present the White Paper is utterly flabby and worthless.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: I was about to say that I was sorry that hon. Members opposite seemed to have lost their zest for the debate, but as I rose to speak I noticed signs of reviving activity on the benches opposite.
Having listened to the debate, I am not altogether surprised by the lack of enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite, because the theme of the debate has been the transparent gap, as is shown in the White Paper and in the speeches of policy proceeding the debate, between commitments made by the Government and demanded of local authorities and the resources made available to meet them. It is very much in this context the argument about defence of a year or two ago when the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) resigned his post as a Defence Minister saying that the Government could not have it both ways, that they must either accept a reduction of commitments, or expand our resources, that we had to make a choice and could not be expected to be believed if we blurred that distinction. The distinction which he honourably exposed, much to the benefit of the examination of our policies in that respect, remains blurred in local authority expenditure. I hope that, partly as a result of the debate, in the weeks ahead we shall be able to bring this distinction out into the open, because until we do, local authorities, ratepayers and taxpayers will not know how they stand.
If there is a gap between what the Government provide and the demands which they expect local authorities to fulfil, it is perfectly reasonable to say that there is another way to fill it, namely, through the rates. The question which then arises is whether it is the intention of the Government that the ratepayer should provide an increased proportion of the costs of

various services. Hitherto, that has not been their policy and when on one or two occasions there has been a slight increase in the emphasis placed on rates as opposed to taxes, it has been hotly contested by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Circumstances sometimes change and there is no reason why policies should not change from time to time to meet changes in circumstances, but there is at least an obligation to announce the change of heart and the reason for it. If the Government intend that rates should bear a larger share of local authority expenditure, let them say so. Otherwise, one must conclude that the intention is that the full cost of local authority expenditure should, with the active connivance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be pegged at its present level.
If that is the intention and it is not intended that rates should rise to plug the gap, we have to consider the consequences of pegging local authority expenditure. I should like to examine some of the consequences for one local authority maintained service, namely, education. This is an important subject, because it accounts for a substantial proportion of the total of local authority expenditure.
It has been said by a number of hon. members, and it is certainly true of Kent, that the approximate cost of standing still in standards is between 6 and 7 per cent. annual increase in expenditure. The reasons are not peculiar to Kent, although they are very pronounced there. They are the reasons of rising population, the problems of coping with a backlog of old buildings, which in Kent is a very heavy backlog simply because we have had to build new simply to put roofs over the heads of children in the new communities which are constantly growing. Added to that, there are additional costs of preparation for secondary reorganisation and the cost—and we are all glad of this—of the high proportion of children staying on at school. That is what the education bill has to bear if our standards are to be maintained.
When against that background one is faced with a responsibility imposed by the Government of keeping the total budget increase to 3 per cent., it becomes difficult to meet the cost of merely maintaining standards. It is difficult because the areas in which one can move at all


are severely limited without major and even disastrous changes in policy. In particular, 70 per cent. of the education budget is accounted for by salaries, wages and loan charges. In other words, that cannot be cut without a positive decision to cut back the supply of teachers at a time when classrooms are already over full.
It is on the record that Ministers do not want the teaching force to be cut back, and one is therefore left with a difficult problem of making major savings in the relatively narrow area in which one can operate. It is not easy for an authority like Kent driven to face this predicament. What it has to do must be brought out into the open. In other respects, too, neither side of the House has anything to gain by clouding the implications of the figures before us.
For instance, Kent is having to postpone vast parts of its school maintenance bill. This is not something which can be done for long without incurring additional costs, for this is only pushing away the problem and not solving it, and it should be recognised that this is what is happening. More disturbing are the obvious long-term effects in Kent and other parts of the country where there is a drive to revive interest in part-time careers, particularly among married women, who are wanted to return to teaching. This drive will be thwarted in this situation. This is serious because, as the numbers in the schools grow, we shall need this reservoir of skilled teaching power and without it we shall have a grave economic as well as social loss. That is one of the consequences of these figures. The third consequence will be the effect on equipment for our schools and, perhaps more important, training courses for teachers. If problems are to be coped with and results produced, improvements in both those directions are vital.
Beyond that, a major decision has to be taken about further education and adult education courses. I have received a great many letters complaining about the sharp increases in charges for these courses in the county. In present circumstances, faced with the problems of schools in Kent, I think that the authority was right to make this unpopular and difficult decision, although I have no doubt about the great value of the work

being done in these adult education classes and the importance of providing educational facilities for leisuretime occupations, especially for the old and the retired.
We have to face up to the problems of priorities. Unless, from time to time, someone is prepared to make an unpopular decision and say "No" to items of expenditure, perpetually one encourages inflation and extravagance, so contributing to getting the country into the pretty pass that it is in at present. For that reason, though I would have liked these increases in adult education charges to have come more gradually and feel that they should have started earlier, I support the Kent Education Authority in what it has done.
I see the Minister nodding. Apparently, he approves. In that case, I hope that he will have a conversation with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who, as I understand it, when asked about adult education classes in Kent, is reported as having said that the prices part of the prices and incomes policy applied to the local education authorities and that the situation in Kent was under investigation. It is difficult to understand whether the hon. Gentleman supports the Government or is intent on undermining the policy to bring expenditure under control.

Mr. Greenwood: I was nodding to indicate my interest in the hon. Gentleman's argument and to show that I was following it.

Mr. Hornby: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will investigate the remarks of his hon. Friend and let us know the result.
If we are to bring local education authority budgets within the limits of Government-imposed financial policy, it seems extraordinary that the present moment should have been chosen by the teaching profession and local education authorities, with the approval of the Department of Education and Science, to remove teachers' responsibilities for the supervision of school meals, as a result of which local authorities are having to find the additional cost of supervisory services. One knows the argument, and it has been a long battle. However, it is odd that that sort of


priority should have been adopted at the present time.
I have no doubt that some local authorities must be looking very hard at their statutory commitments in the realm of higher education, especially when one considers recent events in some of our universities, for reasons not to be discussed in this debate.
If the Government want respect for their authority and for the policies which they are asking local authorities to carry out, let them openly admit the consequences which must follow. Frankly, I do not believe the truth of what is said in the paragraph headed "Education" in the Report. It says that these figures take
… account of the increase in loan charges as a result of the growth of the educational building programmes, and of the expected increase in the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools, which should make possible some improvement in staffing standards".
It goes on:
There will however be room for only a limited improvement in other standards.
Rather than a limited improvement, I think that there will be a deterioration in the standards of public services no less than in the standards of private life in the months that lie ahead. If the Government would lead the way and admit that, at least we should be on the way towards recovery. Unless they do that, there is no hope.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I want to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) to a slight extent. I have listened with astonishment to the arguments advanced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. One would have thought that life in local government expenditure began in 1968. However, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) said, I do now know very much about it. That is quite true. I have had only 20 years on a borough council, and I am sure he has much greater experience. But, in those twenty years, I have been chairman of committees concerned with housing, health and finance, and I have been Leader of the Council. Certainly it did not start in 1968 for me.
If I may take 1957 as a classic example, I can remember vividly the personal rows

that I had with the then Minister of Housing. In the course of them, the arguments that I advanced were precisely those of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite today. He assured me that I had to get my affairs in order and had to take into account the broader issues. We were in financial difficulties, and, if the Government allowed my council to go on doing this and that, quite clearly other authorities would want to do them. I was told that the Government wanted to take a hand in matters and that, after all, Governments must govern. I asked what we should do. I told the Government that if they wanted us to cut back the service, they should say so and be honest about it. The Minister never answered my question then, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will not answer it today.
What has prompted me to join in this debate is the hyprocrisy which I have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am reminded that I saw the then Minister again in 1962. At that time, it was the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I am sorry that he is not with us at the moment, because this is the first time that I have been provoked into taking action about what he said then.
I saw the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "I do not understand, Mr. Brown, why your authority is in this financial difficulty." So I drew a graph to show why we had done all our building during his time in office. He then said, "Now I understand." But I got nothing. As Leader of the Council and Chairman of the Finance Committee I had to face up to my responsibilities.
In 1962, three weeks before a municipal election—when no one in his right mind would have done it but because I felt I had to be honest, I put on a 4s. in the £ increase in rates. I felt that the services should not be cut and I hoped that I had the courage of my convictions on behalf of the people I served to provide the services that they ought to have. But the Government of the day did nothing. On the contrary, they deliberately forced me into that situation. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about what this Government are doing. There has been this steady deterioration over the years.
I come to 1963—a black day in the annals of local government in London—after four or five years of arguing with the Minister to tell us how much it would cost to: he rates in London for his proposals. I was one of those who petitioned the Queen to ask her to intervene, because the Government of the day would not stand up and tell us how much the burden would be in London. I forecast at least a 5s. increase in rates over three years, and I was not far wrong. That was a direct result of the action of the Government of the day. Therefore, when we talk about which Government forced what on to the rates, the previous Conservative Administration just about takes the biscuit.
One hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the G.L.C. and its £4 million. That sounds a great deal of money. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the whole of that £4 million ought to come from the 270,000 tenants of G.L.C. property. A sum of £4 million represents about a 1½ d. rate in London. The average private heriditament is rated at about £180 to £200, which would mean 200 times 1½ d., but the hon. Gentleman suggested we should cast this not over the 8 million population, but over the 600,000 tenants of the G.L.C. He did not tell the House this, and this is what people are getting cynical about. He deliberately twisted these figures to suit his case. So the G.L.C. has behaved scandalously in what it has done.
My right hon. Friend was right. He had the courage to tell local government authorities to face up to their responsibilities in the nation as a whole, and that they cannot be permitted to do what the G.L.C. and other authorities are prepared to do.
I come now to my second point which concerns the local authority associations. There is not a genuine local authority association left. They are an adjunct of the Conservative Party Central Office. I have said this to my own association, of which I am honorary Treasurer. We are now seeing a new move. The A.M.C. is a classical example. During the years that I served on the A.M.C. we always permitted the Conservatives to have a place. The Chairman, Sir Francis Hill, was constantly against the views of my Party, but we deliberately permitted him to stay there because we believed in

democracy. But not the A.M.C. today. It has removed my colleagues, and shame upon it. I shall never again regard it as being representative of local government. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind when it is petitioning him that it no longer represents local government and the good things in local government. We have always wanted—

Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman is usually quite fair, but he has been extravagant and discourteous to the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am a vice-president. A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite are also vice-presidents. All vice-presidents do their best to speak impartially for the Association. The criticisms being levelled against the Association by the hon. Gentleman are quite outrageous.

Mr. Brown: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. But will he explain why my colleagues were removed from its committees?

Mr. Temple: Yes.

Mr. Brown: Will he explain why it was not done on a free vote? Whipping was going on for it to be done. Did we do that before the change took place? I suggest that we did not.

Mr. Temple: I did not hear the voice of a single vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations speaking for the Association on the other side of the House today. I regard this as reprehensible. I believe they all had the same brief that I had and they could have spoken for the Association.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that I should bring the House back to the Order.

Mr. Brown: I will be happy to pursue that argument. I am not a vice-president. I was a member by the authority of my authority. I took my authority out of the A.M.C. because I was disgusted with it in 1962. Today merely re-emphasises my view. When briefs from the A.M.C. are being read I suggest that they ought to be looked at in the context of what the A.M.C. represents today.
I want to talk about this sudden move on the rate support grant. Those who decided to try out the Conservative Administration's ideas are screaming for


more Government money. During the years when they were not in control of local authorities I received more than my fair share of advice—some from hon. Gentlemen in this House, but more so from their friends outside—telling me to get my affairs in good order. I was told that I was profligate in my expenditure and I had to cut back on this and that. I was told that it was desirable and that I had to make up my mind whether we could afford it.
I remember in 1963 that we had a coal cart on Peckham Rye showing how the Conservative Government had cut back the education grant. The Minister turned the argument round and said that it was not a cut back but a step back from advancement; they were just making sure that we did not go too far ahead. He produced a mass of arguments showing why it was not a cut back. It was the same sort of manoeuvre that my right hon. Friend is performing today. He was saying that we should not advance so fast. But that is not what hon. Gentlemen have been adducing tonight. They have implied that my right hon. Friend has in some way departed from the current practice of local government and that apparently up to 1964 local governments were getting more money to do what they wished. This is patently not true.

Mr. Temple: rose —

Mr. Brown: I want to make my point. We were being deliberately cut back, year in, year out.

Mr. Temple: rose —

Mr. Brown: If I has the opportunity of going out of order I could illustrate in items not far from here how my authority deliberately did things to which the Minister had said no—

Mr. Temple: Will the hon Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on these things, because simply making a party point is not very clever.
I have listened to hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about this Government's attitude of local government. When the amount of Exchequer grant per house

built was reduced to zero it put us in a very difficult position. We were already building at a rate which we believed was far below what we ought to be doing. But it finally went up to £24—this enormous sum—which still left us in great difficulty. Today that £24 is £175. To hear hon Gentlemen opposite trying to argue that my right hon. Friend has failed to carry out the responsibilities of the Government in respect of the amount of money he is providing for local government is nonsense.

Mr. Temple: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been present in the Chamber all day. I do not think he heard his right hon. Friend's speech, nor did he hear mine. Was the hon. Gentleman present when the Prime Minister's denial of a supplementary Grant Order for 1968–69 was referred to?

Mr. Brown: It is all clever stuff to talk about my not being here. I was outside the Chamber, dealing with students. They have problems, and I was dealing with them. I was meeting students from my constituency. I can be charged with dereliction of duty. It can be said that I should have told them to go away, and come into the Chamber to hear the debate, but I decided to see my students instead.
All I am trying to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand is that to argue that the Government has failed in some respects to deal with local government in a manner which is customary is nonsense. I have patently shown that the Conservative Government treated this matter with scant respect, and that those who were charged with this duty then were saying all the various things which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying this afternoon. Hon. Gentlemen were just not interested then, and therefore it does not lie in their mouths to charge my right hon. Friend with having provided insufficient money.
My right hon. Friend knows the problems of my constituency. I have discussed these matters with him on a number of occasions. Mine is a difficult area, and has many problems. I have said that people in my area should get a better proportion of the money than they are getting today out of the rate support grant.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester knows that the London boroughs, through the Conservative Central Office, have got together and decided that the parks and open spaces in London shall be transferred back to the boroughs—[Interruption.] We are talking about the expenditure which will bring in the rate support grant, and therefore I am talking about the money which has to be expended by local authorities. When local authorities are faced with this transfer of the parks, my borough will have to pay about £400,000 extra, not for an improved service, not because we shall be providing the ratepayers with something more than they have now, but merely for the privilege of planting their own grass instead of having it planted by the G.L.C. That is the only advantage which they will get, and I am not sure that people in London want that privilege.
We are also shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. Let us look at what is happening in London. The City of Westminster pays £900,000 as part of its precept for the parks and open spaces. When the transfer takes place, it will pay half that amount. The rest of the money will be found by Hackney, Islington, and places like that, where people will feel the burden very much more.
I have tried to illustrate that hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed to make their case that my right hon. Friend is in a way cheating the local authorities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed abysmally. What is more, they have shown that whilst they were in control they deliberately set out on this road of transferring the burden from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, and I think that history will judge them extremely harshly.

8.14 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Hands-worth): If the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) really thinks that the education service, relative to its needs, did as badly in 1963 and 1964 as it will do in 1969 and 1970, I must disabuse him of that idea, because it simply is not so. Perhaps I might quote one figure. In October, 1963, when we were celebrating National Education Week, I announced the school-building programmes for 1965–66 and 1966–67. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon.

Gentlemen opposite should laugh. One of the chief requests made to me as Minister was to give longer notice of the school-building programme, and that was very much welcomed by authorities, compared with the short notice which they have been given lately. We had the full figures from the right hon. Gentleman in a Parliamentary Answer at the end of October. The improvement element in those two years in the programme I announced at the end of 1963 was just about £30 million in each year, which was greatly in excess of what it has been at any time since.

Mr. Marks: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that figure was also greatly in excess of the figure for the previous years, and was not that the year of a General Election?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the figure was higher than that for the previous year, which, speaking from memory, was £18 million, itself larger than the recent figure. The hon. Gentleman should not be too critical about this, because, as he will recall, Manchester got quite a number of primary school improvement projects of a kind it has not often had since.
I should like to take up the challenge issued to me earlier in the debate by the Minister, and also by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). Throughout this year, on a number of occasions, both inside the House and outside, I have expressed the view that the Government's cuts on education have proved not only educationally damaging, but disproportionate in relation to the economy measures as a whole. In a speech in January of this year I said:
The Government should aim to protect those forms of investment expenditure which encourage growth and efficiency while cutting down on those which absorb scarce resources to no good purpose, and on indiscriminate subsidies to consumption.
That remains my view.
In the February debate, in addition to points which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made more recently, I said that I believed that public opinion would have accepted them and then a further charge in school meals for those who could afford it. I also made the point, and I repeat it now, that it would have been reasonable in the current


quinquennium to have asked the universities to accept a staff-student ratio not of one to seven but of one to eight, which would itself have saved about £10 million to £15 million a year. Therefore, when arguing for priorities and defending the education service, I have always tried to suggest alternative methods which it seemed to me would have saved more money more wisely.
I do not want to repeat what I have often said in the House about the importance of the education service, but I remind Hon. Members that we have recently had the Brookings Report, that influential economic study of Britain, which said, among other things, that the British Government were not spending enough on education.
I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) in his excellent speech, and say something about what I regard, as he does, as the serious gap which is growing up between the educational commitments which we all make and the resources which are being made available to the service. One thing that no Government can do is to expect local authorities to carry out national policies without allocating resources necessary to carry out those policies, and the Government are doing precisely that. It is because of the dangerous gap which is growing up between commitments and resources that we are particularly critical of the Government in this debate.
There is a certain irony in the present position, because the problems have been caused in considerable measure by the success of policies which the Conservative Government initiated. The right hon. Gentleman uttered some rather incautious words this afternoon about the niggardliness of Tory Governments. Perhaps he will ascertain the view of the President of the Association of Education Committees, Alderman Broughton of the West Riding, who, in his presidential address this year, said that even after revising the amounts to take account of rising prices the impressive fact was that spending on education had doubled in the ten years between 1955 and 1965. There had been an average annual increase of 9 per cent. in those years.
What were the policies that we initiated and which have been carried

on by successive Ministers? I want to mention three in particular. In doing so I shall quote from the admirable publication, "Learning Beyond Our Means" by Mr. Stuart Maclure which has come from the Association of Education Committees. Mr. Maclure says:
Perhaps the one true priority which stands out most clearly—because it has been adopted by both political parties, and because Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Anthony Crosland, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker and Mr. Edward Short have actively and expensively pursued it—is the over-riding need to improve the teacher-pupil ratio and eliminate over-size classes. Over the past 10 years the massive expansion of the colleges of education—from 25,900 places in 1957 to 84,900 in 1967—has been geared to this priority, Not only has it cost millions of pounds to expand the colleges … but it also has entailed rising recurrent staff costs in the schools.
That policy has rightly been pursued during the last ten years. It is sometimes said that primary schools have always been the Cinderella of the service. There is a sense in which that is true, but it must be remembered that the benefit that they have had through the large sums spent on teacher training in this country has been very notable.
Secondly, there has been the expansion in technical and higher education. I believe that this has not only been very important to the nation but also an immense advantage to thousands of young people over the years. I should have thought there would be general agreement among hon. Members about the importance of the expansion of technical education that the noble Lord, Lord Eccles initiated in the late 1950s.
Thirdly, there has also been the widening of opportunities in secondary schools. On this point I was interested to see an article in The Times on Saturday by Brian Macarthur, who pointed out that:
At the start of 1968, there were 114,000 senior sixth form students, who comprised nearly 17 per cent. of their total age group … In 1977, on the present Ministry projections, there will be nearly 180,000 senior sixth form students … while in 1980, there will be 210,500
which is 26 per cent. of the age group.
This expansion of opportunity in secondary schools—in particular the growth of the sixth forms—is a movement which will gather pace as we come into the 1970s. If we were to seek to reverse


this pressure towards secondary opportunity it would surely require Draconian legislation—which Parliament would rightly not accept—and a rapid retreat from the ideals of the 1944 Education Act.
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that we can have an expansion of school education without needing a corresponding expansion of higher and further education. I have said this before on one occasion, but I repeat it: it reminds me of what a senior civil servant once said to me, namely, how curious it is that a highly intelligent Minister sometimes likes to contemplate a model which suggests that water might one day run uphill. There is not the slightest chance of this trend being reversed.
Those are three major commitments which Ministers in successive Governments have made, and they all date from the middle 1950s. In addition, more recently we have been placing other responsibilities upon local authorities. There has been the Plowden policy, of extra money for educational priority areas, which adds to the burden of recurrent expenditure. There has been the urban programme, which we were debating only a week ago. There have been the consquences of the Industrial Training Act, which many hon. Members greatly underrate. No less than 40 per cent. of this expenditure falls on local authorities.
Last but not least, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—who seems to have left the Chamber—there have been the consequences of the move towards secondary reorganisation. It is absurd to say that that is only a matter of the building programme, and does not affect the recurrent expenditure of local authorities. The whole point is to widen opportunities, particularly for the broad middle band of ability.
The hon. Member is not now here, and I am sorry, because I regret the fact that he took the opportunity to make a completely unjustified attack on my party in Bromley, and its intentions with regard to the reorganisation scheme, or the Welbourne plan. I know the present Chairman of the Education Committee and have had a lot of dealings with him in this matter. The slur cast

on my party's intentions in the borough of Bromley was unjustified and I regret it should have been made.
Those are some of the commitments that we place upon local authorities today and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge was right to lay so much stress on the gap between these commitments and the resources that we are now making available.
I now turn to paragraph 15 of the Order. I agree with two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who is so experienced in these matters. He was right to point out that the financial basis of the Order is unsound because the base is a false one. I have no brief from the Association of Municipal Corporations, but I have a note from the County Councils Association which points out that it is now clear that local authorities overall have incurred increased expenditure of about £40 million for 1967–68 so that the whole basis of the calculations in this White Paper is suspect.
I also agree with my hon. Friend when he points out that there is no guarantee that the relativities listed in Appendix E will be adhered to. The rate support grant is not the bringing together of a series of earmarked grants. In answer to a Question of mine on 5th December, when I asked:
… can the right hon. Gentleman say how he can be sure of the 3¾ per cent. figure in view of the responsibility given to local authorities under the rate support grant procedure?
The Secretary of State rightly answered:
"I cannot be sure of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 1810.]
Let us be clear: there can be no guarantee on this matter.
I would now like to consider the rather meagre paragraph 15 sentence by sentence. It seems to be a rather sad outcome of the brave words in 1964 about "investment in human capital" being "pitifully inadequate". The first sentence says:
The expenditure envisaged in education allows in full for the expected increases in the numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools and for the likely growth of further and higher education.
It is particularly on the latter half of that sentence that I should like to ask some questions.
It is, of course, true that the numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools will rise in the next two years by about 3 per cent. a year, but what we should like to know are the Government's estimates of the numbers going into further and higher education, as in the nature of things it is far more expensive to provide for these than for primary and secondary school pupils. I find the sentence incredible in this context and totally disingenuous.
Between 1963 and 1966, the numbers of students in full-time and sandwich courses alone increased by 20 per cent. and there is no reason to suppose that that rate is likely to slow down. Indeed, I should have thought that it must continue. I hope that it would not be out of order here to quote a sentence from the National Plan:
Despite the major progress already made within the further education system, the urgent need for a more skilled labour force will involve substantial expansion in further education.
I hope that I will not be out of court with too many hon. Members if I pray in aid as another witness in this context Lord Balogh, who has constantly said that if we mean business about efficiency we must pay greater attention to what he called the "infrastructure" of professional education. On that point, I would not quarrel with him.

Mr, J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I know that he is sufficiently fair-minded to know that any Administration, of whatever political colour, largely make their dispositions on the basis of the demographic forecasts of their technical experts. If I may refresh his mind on one in particular: when Lord Beveridge was given the task of designing a new social welfare system by the then Coalition Government, he forecast an expected unemployment rate of 8 per cent., which was never realised in practice. Similarly, many of the forecasts fed into the ears of Ministers of both parties, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, have been wide of the mark by miles. Therefore, I personally would reject a great deal of technical evidence which is given to us.

Sir E. Boyle: My answer to the hon. Member is that we can surely make some progress in statistical forecasting over a

quarter of a century. He should not be so reactionary; he must believe that progress can happen sometimes. It is extremely unlikely that, when the number of students in full-time and sandwich courses alone has increased by 20 per cent. between 1963 and 1966, the sudden slowing down envisaged in this paragraph will prove correct.
I particularly raise in this context the development of the polytechnics, which are bound to suffer. Local education authorities cannot possibly provide books and equipment on the required scale. In fact, they are already feeling the squeeze. It was, I think, Mr. Eric Robinson, referring to Enfield College of Technology, who said:
We have a new building, but not enough money to use it.
If that is the case in 1968, the situation will clearly be worse in 1969 and 1970. It is a curious priority which puts the biggest squeeze, as I believe the Government are doing, on that part of the education service which most directly relates to productive and managerial efficiency.
The second sentence of paragraph 15 says that the expenditure:
… takes account of the increase in loan charges as a result of the growth of the educational building programmes, and of the expected increase in the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools, which should make possible some improvement in staffing standards".
This sentence is so much at variance with the statements of people who have to run the education service that, although one can only hope that it is right, it seems to be grossly over-optimistic. I would ask the right hon. Lady, does this sentence include part-time teachers without whom, in many areas, not only would an improvement in staffing standards be impossible, but the pupil-teacher ratio would certainly get worse?
I am glad that some hon. Members have referred to the problems of staffing in schools and the consequences of the Order on the future of staffing. There is already some sign of a falling off in the recruitment of off-quota teachers. They have been increasing by 2,000 a year. But the Department of Education and Science reckons that this year the addition is only 700. That strikes me as lamentable. As a former Minister, I was engaged in one of the many propaganda campaigns to get back more part-time


teachers—to get back married women returners—during the early 1960s. The whole mood then was "how can we get more married women returners back into the schools?" We had a series of propaganda drives, and by 1964 it was fair to say that we thought that the prospects for achieving the full-time equivalent, annually, of 10,000 married women returners were better than the prospects of achieving a similar annual intake of graduates.
I would ask the right hon. Lady if this sentence includes part-time teachers and what will happen about "off quota" teachers'? It is all the more important to bear this in mind, because during the next decade, between 1968 and 1978 the total school population will rise from 7·4 million to 9·5 million. The primary school roll will rise over these next 10 years by 15 per cent., the secondary school roll by 50 per cent. and the over 15 by 125 per cent. Whatever views one holds, I feel that it is a mistake to talk about major issues of Government expenditure without being quite clear what are the relative quantities with which one is dealing. Over the next 10 years we will see a demographic movement which makes this issue of teacher supply of very special importance.
I come next to the question of what will have to be cut. This takes up the last rather grim sentence of paragraph 15:
There will however be room for only a limited improvement in other standards.
Anyone used to the drafting of Government documents will realise what this means. They would feel that there was something rather ominous in that phrase. It reminds me a little bit, if I may remind the House of this, of the comment by Sir Sidney Lee on the gastronomic habits of King Edward VII: "A hearty eater he never toyed with his food." When someone produces a sentence like this in a Government document one can be sure that there is rather more in it than appears at first sight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge has already said something about what will have to be cut. If I may quote Stuart Maclure once again, I believe that he is right when he says:
Every local education authority is now purged first of all of any item which can in any way be described as development This

is only the first stage in the process of budget-trimming. But this in itself is highly damaging if it lasts more than a very short time. The last attitude which ought to be encouraged is one of determined opposition to anything new. Innovation usually costs more in upheaval and discomfort than it does in money. There are always those who would rather stick in the same comfortable rut they've been in for years than try something new.
This is true. One of the tragedies of the present situation is the discouragement to innovation and development. Then there is the very serious danger of a cut in school equipment, educational technology and so on. This is regretable, because educational technology may well prove very important to the economics of education in the future. As the House knows, I have a certain interest to declare when talking about books, being the director of a publishing firm, but it is worth remembering that expenditure by a local authority has to rise by up to 12½ per cent. simply to keep up with costs.
A small but very irritating matter is that of grants to voluntary bodies. I am always struck by the amount of Help that can be given by local authorities through relatively quite small grants to voluntary bodies. We have raised this point in many contexts lately, and I promise not to develop it, but I very much regret for instance, that the Government have pegged their grant to the new Community Relations Council, because of the amount of help that body should be giving by way of small grants to voluntary organisations concerned with immigrants.
Last, there is maintenance. The Government must be hoping for a series of mild winters. What will be the consequences of this in terms of particular authorities? I will quote two examples. I return to what I said in the debate on the Gracious Speech about the West Riding, and would like once again to refer to Alderman Broughton, who said that in the West Riding it had taken three attempts to get the estimates down even to 9·7 per cent. about the previous year. He said:
To keep to a 3 per cent. increase in real terms would mean in the West Riding these things: having to keep the teaching staff to the level of January, 1967, despite an increased number of children; cutting out grants for school uniforms and essential clothing; reducing by 20 per cent. the purchase of books, stationery, apparatus and equipment; suspending non-vocational F.E. courses: eliminating direct grants to the universities and all discretionary awards; cutting out all


school redecoration and reducing spending on repairs to a ceiling of £100,000. And still the total would top 3 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 424.]
That is the measure of the problem with which local authorities are faced today. I wish to quote an anonymous authority, a very large county borough in the North of England. This authority has given me some estimates which I will pass on approximately to the House, and I have promised not to reveal the identity of this borough. I am told:
The extra expenditure on primary schooling in 1969–70 looks at the moment like being of the order of 8 per cent., though obviously there will have to be reductions on things like essential painting which has already been postponed for one or two years.
I urge the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) to accept that it is a bit rough to criticise authorities because they have already tried to cut down their estimates. One of the reasons for the seriousness of the present situation is because this limitation of 3 per cent. comes on top of some years of limitation during which authorities have been trying to keep their expenditure down. The northern county borough which wishes to remain anonymous has given me some other interesting figures. For example, it informs me:
Secondary education looks like going up by at least 7 per cent. And there is less room for pruning on maintenance because more of the secondary than primary buildings are relatively new.
It is an interesting point to note that the percentage estimated for increased expenditure on teachers is relatively small—my informant would say too small—and certainly not more than 1½ per cent. for primary schools and rather less than 4 per cent. for secondary schools. Rents, rates and debt charges show the really large increases. Again, the considerable extra cost of running a comprehensive comes into these calculations, particularly where there are split premises. This is inevitably bound to add to the expenditure of local authorities.

Mr. Marks: Does the right hon. Gentleman have the figures for the school population of this northern county borough to which he is referring?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not have the figure for the increase in population, but I believe that it is not out of line with

the figures for the country as a whole. I have reason to think that it will be rather below the national average. I do not wish to particularise too much in this connection because, as I explained, these figures were given to me on the understanding that I would not identify the county borough. Suffice to say that it is an authority with a considerable overspill programme.
One must consider, in this context, the pooled expenditure of F.E. colleges. Advanced F.E. expenditure initially looks like accounting for an increase of no less than about 14½ per cent. As for the figure for colleges of education, it seems as though an increase of about 10 per cent. must be expected in student numbers and an 8 per cent. increase in estimates. Somehow all these figures will have to be got down to an increase of not more than about 6½ per cent.—and then any further reduction will be the sole responsibility of the Government. Those are the sort of problems with which so many counties and boroughs are now faced.
I agree with the view in The Times Literary Supplement that we are getting back to the old concept of the early 50s which used to be called the "basic fabric of education", of which hon. Gentlemen opposite were so critical. I cannot help recalling my first debate in this House on education. It took place on 25th March, 1952. I recall the rather unusual winding-up speech made on that occasion by Sir Kenneth Pickthorn about Went-worth Woodhouse.
Having refreshed the memories of hon. Members, it is perhaps worth recalling what the right hon. Lady said on that occasion. She said that the Labour Party maintained that it was impossible to get a substantial amount spent on education without in some way impairing the education services. She made it clear that she was referring to a cut in the forecasts which local authorities thought necessary for the following year.
She went on to say that the so-called frills were the most important part of the educational system.
The present Secretary of State for Education and Science also took part in that debate. He was even louder in his protests. He stated:
… any blow against the educational system is a blow against the economy and


the economic prospects of the country, as well as against the children.
He made a reference to the parable of the talents and, then added, rather strikingly:
The question is not whether we should economist; in education in the midst of our difficulties, but that because of our difficulties we dare not economise on education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 279–80.]
I know that we can all quote from past speeches, and it is, perhaps, a somewhat facile form of debating, but I cannot help drawing the contrast between what the Secretary of State said then and the problems that face local authorities in both big cities and counties at present.
I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge about adult education in Kent. It seems to me that we need not now add insult to injury. We all feel that there must be some priorities, and under present conditions it is quite inevitable, that there should be an increase in charges for adult education. I rather regret that the Minister for Sport should have said no more than that the prices part of the prices and incomes policy applied to the L.E.A.s, and that the situation in Kent was under investigation. I do not share the opposition to Mr. Aubrey Jones and his Board that some feel, but, with respect, I think that this habit of making him an excuse, and a refuge to which Ministers can all resort when under pressure, is a very great mistake.
No one doubts the seriousness of the economic situation and I am not suggesting that education should have been completely exempted from the cuts made necessary by the failure of the Government's economic strategy, but I do say that education has suffered disproportionately this year. We in this House should never forget two things: it is not just a platitude to say that the potential talent of our young people is our most valuable asset, and it is still true that too many children, even now, are being allowed to write themselves off below their true potential. I suggest it is thoroughly unfair, when we make a mess of the economy, that our young people should be among the chief sufferers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) quoted the

view that 1969 and 1970 will be the worst years for education since 1931. The one certain thing is—and this was repeated last week in the Times Educational Supplement —that they will certainly be bad years. I hope that in this situation the educational service will not lose heart.
It seems to me that there are certain big dangers which face the country at the present time. One danger is that we shall listen to those who offer us short cuts or soft option. Another is that there will be a widespread feeling of weariness and disillusionment. There is much more likely to be a feeling of weariness and disillusionment if we allow this gap between commitments and resources to grow too dangerously wide.
It is also very unfortunate that we should be debating this Order, and should be faced with this crucial problem both for local authority finance and for the education service, just when we also have major Burnham negotiations under way.
I hope that educationalists, faced with the inadequacies of the Government's proposals, will make their voice heard, and will remind us always of the crucial importance of this service for our young people and for the nation. As for ourselves in this House, I hope that we shall face honestly what the Order means, and we on these benches will certainly see that the responsibility for these acute difficulties is firmly laid where it belongs.

8.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): This debate has ranged over the whole field of local authority expenditure, and even beyond. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has spoken almost entirely about education, as have a few other hon. Members. I am winding up the debate because we anticipated that a great deal of it would be about education. In order not to be thought to be dealing in a cavalier manner with some of the hon. Members who have spoken on other matters, I shall try to deal with some points raised earlier.
One or two hon. Members raised the question of transport services and highways. The amounts agreed for transport services at November, 1968, prices are £211·4 million for 1969–70 and £234·8


million for 1970–71. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said that the 1967–68 relevant expenditure for highways was £190 million including loan charges of £24 million and that the 1970–71 proposed relevant expenditure is £191 million including loan charges of £36 million. I confirm those figures, but the sum allowed for 1967–68 for highways was £184 million. Local authorities had therefore overspent to the extent of £6 million. The figures for 1969–70 and 1970–71 represent restriction, but there will have to be some restriction on highways in the present economic situation.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) said that Portsmouth receives a much smaller amount of supplementary education element in the grant than Southampton, but the education supplementary grant should not be looked at in isolation. This is only a topping-up element to take account of particularly high education costs. The hon. Member also complained that Portsmouth suffered because of its declining population, but Portsmouth gets extra grant because of this decline.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made various points about the figures in the White Paper and in the Order. He said that compared with the £2,793 million relevant expenditure taken in last year's increase Order for 1968–69, local authorities had rated for a further £71 million and were expecting to have to find another £50 million, thus leaving little of the 3 per cent. for development. I think the hon. Member was getting a little confused between prices and development. The Order takes account of prices up to mid-November. Increases after that will be taken into account in any future increase Order. The 3 per cent. is quite separate; it is not for costs but for development.
The hon. Member for City of Chester complained about a false base in 1967–68. It is true that 1967–68 was £40 million overspent, but there is no mystery about the effect of this. My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate, said what the annual increases were in real terms in the five years 1965–66 to 1970–71. The hon. Member for Worcester said that local authorities estimate very accurately and over the seven years of general grant the error was only £8 million in £8,000

million, but the accuracy he mentioned applied to the estimates after they had been pruned by Ministers, as has been done on this occasion. Had local authority estimates been used, the error would not have been £8 million but at least £100 million more.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is it not true that the 1967–68 estimates as approved by the Minister proved to be £40 million wrong and the estimates for local authorities for the coming year will be £71 million wrong?

Miss Bacon: No, I cannot accept that figure for the reasons that I have given, but perhaps we can discuss this at a later stage.
The hon. Gentleman taunted us about the National Plan. But education will achieve the 25 per cent. growth forecast in the Plan in the time that was envisaged.
Many other questions were raised, such as on family planning and caravan sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Ashton) spoke about derelict areas, of which my right hon. Friend has taken note.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised the question of the Caravan Sites Act. We know that he has an interest in this since he introduced that Measure, and I also have considerable interest in it from my local authority point of view. The burden of the hon. Member's complaint was that Part II of the Act had not yet been put into operation. But my right hon. Friend assures me that if any local authority wishes to go ahead, sympathetic consideration will be given to the matter of loan sanction. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that the setting up of permanent caravan sites will mean capital expenditure which in the present situation we could not enter into, but I assure him that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend who looks particularly after this subject are as concerned as he is to do something as soon as possible.

Mr. Allason: Could the right hon. Lady at this point answer my question about whether a Supplementary Grants Order will be introduced to cover the increase in cost as a result of that Act?

Miss Bacon: We have not yet put Part II into operation, and so I cannot answer that question specifically. As I said, the


first cost will be a capital cost. If after the capital cost has been entered into there are any loan charges, that is a question that my right hon. Friend will have to look into at a later date. But I hope that local authorities will progress in this respect where they can. I know the difficulty which the hon. Member for Orpington has mentioned about who is to be the first to begin, but we want to see this going ahead.
The hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Handsworth spoke about the Bromley reorganisation scheme. I was as surprised as anybody else to hear on the radio one morning that Bromley was to postpone its scheme for comprehensive reorganisation because of lack of Government finance. I do not think that was a particularly accurate account of what happened. The local authority has informed me that it does not intend to withdraw or amend the plan, which was approved last March. But it was not due to come into operation until 1975. What was to happen next September was that there was to be a change in the method of selection at 11. This was a preparatory stage.
As I have said on several occasions, we set on one side this year and next year £7 million for reorganisation schemes where comprehensive plans would be held up for lack of money. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that I said that all plans due to come into operation in 1969 and 1970 had been saved by the £14 million. But Bromley did not ask for any of the £7 million. Indeed, as I said, its scheme was not due to come into operation until 1975.
However, I authorised the one building project which the local authority claimed was vital to the launching of its reorganisation scheme. If its reconsideration of some parts of the scheme leads to a change in what it needs in regard to buildings, I shall be prepared to consider fresh proposals. However, I think that the local authority has probably been having second thoughts about the preparatory work which is due before the plan itself comes into operation.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is in touch with the Bromley local authority to see what is happening. I am as sorry as he is if there is any mis-

understanding or if the scheme is in any way held up, but I am assured that the final scheme is not held up.

Mr. Lubbock: After her further consultations with the local education authority, will the right hon. Lady be good enough to set out the facts in writing to me, so that the parents and teachers, who are most anxious about it, may have the fullest possible information?

Miss Bacon: Certainly, I shall do that. I do not believe that there is the difficulty which was envisaged in the newspaper reports and the reports on the radio.
Attention has centred on education, particularly towards the end of the debate, and it took up most of the speech of the right hon. Member for Hands-worth. This is not surprising, since of the £6,000 million local authority expenditure in the next two years which we are here discussing, education, including school meals and milk, accounts for over half. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve if I now concentrate on education.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has already explained the economic background to the Order. I wish to add a word about total expenditure on education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave some figures in the debate on the Address, and I shall not repeat them all, but I must emphasise the rapid rate at which education expenditure has been growing, by about 60 per cent. in money terms over the last four years and at more than 5 per cent. a year in real terms. As a result, the percentage of the gross national product devoted to education has increased from 5·3 per cent. in 1963–64 to 6·1 per cent. last year.
Despite the need for restraint in public expenditure in order to shift resources for the benefit of the balance of payments and investment, total expenditure on education is likely to rise by another 7 or 8 per cent. over the next two years. Next year, for the first time in our history, we shall be spending more on education than on defence. That is why it is nonsense to talk about cuts in education expenditure.
Education is the largest single local authority service, and, as I have said, it


accounts for more than half the expenditure which we are discussing today. Moreover, of the total expenditure on education three-quarters is in the hands of local authorities. Education, as we so often say, is a national service locally administered. Unless the Government and the local authorities recognise the crucial importance of education and ensure that adequate resources are made available to it, the service cannot prosper.
I shall come later to some of the detailed figures, but I wish to make clear from the outset that this Order provides for a substantial increase in real terms in local authority expenditure on education. If the broad pattern of expenditure shown in Appendix B of the Report presented by my right hon. Friend is followed, local authority expenditure on education will rise by £55 million this year and by nearly £60 million in the following year. This means a rate of increase of about 3¾ per cent. a year. Since an annual increase of about 3 per cent. in real terms is required to maintain existing standards, there will be a margin for improvements.
Paragraph 15 of the Report summarises the Government's views when it says:
The expenditure envisaged in education allows in full for the expected increases in the number of pupils in primary and secondary schools and for the likely growth of further and higher education. It takes account of the increase in loan charges as a result of the growth of the educational building programmes, and of the expected increase in the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools, which should make possible some improvements in staffing standards. There will however be room for only a limited improvement in other standards.
I want to emphasise the dominating rôle of teachers' salaries in the expenditure we are discussing. The right hon. Gentleman said that my party had once said that we would take teachers' salaries completely out of the hands of local authorities, and that they would be a charge on the national Exchequer. I think that he will realise that until we have the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government we cannot make any major changes in local authority finance, particularly in education and teachers' salaries.

Mr. Allason: Then could the right hon. Lady say why the proposal was included

in the Labour Party's 1964 election manifesto?

Miss Bacon: We set up the Royal Commission on Local Government, and the hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be foolish to make major changes in the finance of education prior to any changes which might take place in areas and functions of local authorities. One thing must come before the other.

Mr. Temple: The right hon. Lady's right hon. Friend said two years ago in a similar debate that he was putting in hand an immediate review of other sources of locally-raised revenue. What has become of that review?

Miss Bacon: I understand that my right hon. Friend has put the review in hand, but it would be foolish to reach conclusions about local government finance before getting the Report of the Royal Commission. We expect this early in the new year, and the time to look at local government finance will be when we have discussed it.

An Hon. Member: Waiting for Godot.

Miss Bacon: The Royal Commission on Local Government, if it reports next spring, will have taken far less time than most Royal Commissions take to report.
In round figures, the salaries and other costs of teachers in primary and secondary schools account for two-fifths of the total expenditure of local authorities on education and one-fifth of all local authority expenditure covered by the Order. A growth in the number of teachers such as the Order allows for is essential to the improvement of staffing standards in the schools and to the general development of the education service. That is why the Government gives the highest priority to it, and we hope that local authorities will do the same.
There is an important last point on teachers' salaries. The figures in the Order take no account of increases in wages, salaries or prices which may occur in the next two years. It follows that any increases in teachers' salaries next year will be a matter for a rate support grant increase Order. It is envisaged that for future years increase Orders will be made in the usual way. Local authorities can therefore confidently plan their spending on the basis that the grant they will get


under this Order will not be eroded by inflation, and teachers can be confident that the Government will pay their proper share of a salary increase.
I turn now to teacher supply. It may be useful to begin by looking at what has happened during 1968. In the early months, fears were expressed that, by September, there would be widespread unemployment of teachers. We were told last summer that this would happen. September has come and gone and there is remarkably little evidence that any appreciable number of newly-trained teachers, who were willing to go where the jobs were, have been unable to find posts.
There may this year, as in others, be some people, particularly those with rather specialised qualifications, who have not yet found posts, and I hope that they will do so next term as normal wastage creates vacancies. But when the term began there were more vacancies than candidates in many areas.

Mr. Hornby: But this is not the point Surely the point does not concern trained teachers coming from colleges and looking for vacancies but the previous campaign to bring back into teaching trained teachers—for instance, after marriage—who could be used in the schools to bring down the size of classes.

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in answer to a Question last week that there are 1,000 more part-time teachers in the schools than a year ago. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my theme, he will appreciate the position. In September, there were more vacancies than candidates. The fact that there might have been some difficulties for some people flowed from our policy of purposely making jobs scarcer in some places as part of a special effort to make the quota system do the job for which it was designed. That is the system by which my right hon. Friend, acting on behalf of local education authorities generally, rations the available supply of teachers among authorities.
When there is a shortage of teachers, some areas—and the right hon. Member for Handsworth, coming from Birmingham, readily understands this—find recruitment very difficult. These areas

tend to be those which contain most of the deprived schools, whose children, as the Plowden Report reminded us, should really have above-average provision. The quota system has alleviated some of these disparities but as late as February, 1967, authorities were failing to get their quota of teachers and some were falling short by as much as 13 per cent. What that kind of deficiency means for the children and the teachers only those who have seen and worked in these schools know and appreciate.
Last year, we tightened up the working of the system and achieved an improvement. This year we made an even more determined effort to see that teachers were employed where they were most needed. Greatly increased allocations were given to educational priority areas and to those with many immigrants—the latter receiving 2,000 in all.
By restricting recruitment in the better-staffed areas, we also achieved more success in ensuring that the authorities in the difficult areas could actually recruit up to their new quotas. During the summer, one after another of the shortage areas reported that their difficulties were largely solved. Returns received this term showed that, for the first time, half the authorities were within 1 per cent. either way of their quota. Some areas which had benefited both from eliminating a deficiency and from increased special allocations have made phenomenal progress. Three had increased their force of full-time qualified teachers by over 10 per cent.
I have a cutting from the Birmingham Post of 30th August, this year, in which spokesmen for both Birmingham and Wolverhampton said that they were better off for teachers than they had ever been. This means that by making the quota work we have been putting teachers in the areas where they were most needed. It is true that somebody in Surrey or Sussex may not be able to find a job on the doorstep, but the essential thing it that part of our policy has worked in that for the first time places like Wolverhampton and Birmingham have the teachers they need.
I mention what has happened during the last year to draw attention to a noteworthy achievement by the Government and education authorities jointly,


secondly, to show that the prophets of gloom may sometimes be proved wrong, and, thirdly, to suggest that the fact that jobs were deliberately made scarce in some areas—with good results—may have given many people the impression that we were near mass unemployment when we were not and may have coloured their assessment of the prospects for the school year 1969–70.
We are told that there will be a great deal of unemployment in September, 1969, but I think that I can dispel this fear. What are the prospects and what does this Rate Support Grant Order do? We know from information supplied by local authorities that they want to employ 13,000 more teachers next year. We have accepted that figure for the purposes of this Order which means that within this rate support grant there is an allowance for an extra 13,000 teachers next year, which is the precise number for which the local authorities have asked us. For the following year we have again accepted the total number of an increase of 11,000, and again the necessary finance is available in this Order.
This is a remarkable achievement. There will be 200,000 more children in the schools in the new year and from that it can be seen that if we have 13,000 extra teachers and 200,000 extra children, far from standards being depressed and far from classes becoming bigger, the classes will be smaller a year from now. That will dispel some of the gloom we have been getting.

Sir E. Boyle: The annual increase in the rate of off-quota teachers has fallen from 2,000 to only 700 in 1968–69. Has the right hon. Lady in mind any figure of what we can expect for 1969–70?

Miss Bacon: I am not sure that that figure is the right one, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there were 7,000 temporary occasional teachers on 1st October and none may be employed after 31st August, 1970, because of the arrangement reached by the teachers' associations. We calculated that the number of teachers counting against quota will increase by about 15,000, but the number not covered by quota dropped by 4,000 between February and October, largely because of the new policy towards unqualified teachers. I

am sure that none of us wants local authorities to dismiss part-time teachers, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that over the years, as we get more and more full-time teachers coming into the schools, local authorities, if there is a choice, will probably decide to employ the full-time rather than the part-time teacher. I am sure that for the next year we shall need many part-time teachers, particularly married women teachers who have been coming back into the schools.
It might be asked whether the number of posts will be enough to absorb the increased number of students coming from colleges. It must be remembered that the pay-roll of the local education authorities includes 7,000 unqualified teachers on 1st October, and it has been agreed with the local authorities and the teachers' representatives that no new appointments shall be made after 31st August, 1968. Taking account of the vacancies so created and the fact that more full-time teachers will become available, I see no reason to think that there would be a shortage of places for the newly-trained teachers who will complete their training next summer.
Turning to some of the other expenditures in schools, although teachers' salaries dominate expenditure on education, especially in primary and secondary schools, local authorities spend about £250 million a year on other running costs, maintenance of buildings and so on. We expect this expenditure to rise between this year and next by about 2½ per cent. per pupil. In the following year, there will probably be less available for this sort of improvement, but there is no reason why standards should fall. It is important that, when local authorities are looking for savings to keep the growth of their expenditure in line with the Government's intentions, they should remember that an adequate supply of books is as important as an adequate supply of teachers.
I know that a great deal of concern has been expressed about further education—

Mr. Lubbock: Before the hon. Lady leaves the subject of books, one hon. Member raised the problem resulting from the introduction of decimal currency. It is obvious that new textbooks will be required as a result of that. Arising from


that and the coming change over to the metric system, will proper sums be made available?

Miss Bacon: I answered a Question about that a few weeks ago. We expect that local authorities will not have to engage in great expenditures for this but will be able to manage it through the usual arrangements for wear and tear and the provision of new books. We do not anticipate any heavy expenditure because of it.
A great deal of concern has been expressed about further education, which is the fastest growing sector of the local authority education service. Last year, the current expenditure of local authorities on further education was over £190 million. In 1963–64, the figure was £107 million. Again, there has been a very great inc-ease over the years.

Mr. Temple: rose —

Miss Bacon: No, I must get on.

Mr. Temple: What terms—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady does not give way, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) must keep his seat.

Miss Bacon: I have given way a great deal, as a result of which my speech is becoming rather a long one.
At present, there are 250,000 full-time and sandwich students, including nearly 70,000 advanced students taking courses at or close to degree level at polytechnics and elsewhere and receiving awards similar to those of university students. Then there are over 800,000 part-time day students, the majority taking day release. Finally, there are 2 million students taking evening courses, mostly of a cultural and recreational kind.
It is true that we are reducing by over £20 million in each year the authorities' forecast of expenditure on further education. But, in the Government's view, there will be sufficient resources available to local authorities to meet the likely demand for further education. I know that some local authorities are contemplating increases in fees for non-vocational evening courses—at present, typically £2 or £2 10s. for 36 classes in a year—to increase revenue. This is a difficult problem. On the one hand,

authorities were reminded last year that students in these classes should be expected to bear a reasonable proportion of the cost and, in addition, increases in fees to take account of higher costs are justified. On the other hand, it is important that fee increases should not be excessive. The Government have no power to tell local authorities what fees they should charge for these classes, but I hope that they will strike a balance between these various factors.
I will not go into details about teacher training, except to say that there is great expansion in the colleges of education.
Concerning school meals, the forecasts allow for the growth in the school population and for the numbers taking free meals, which have increased from just over 300,000 in the autumn of 1966 to over 800,000 in the autumn of 1968.
Educational building has been mentioned. This is not, strictly speaking, part of the Order, except so far as the loan charges are part of it. The right hon. Member for Handsworth is usually very fair, but he has repeated something tonight which he said in the House on a previous occasion about the amount which, in his period of office as Secretary of State for Education, was devoted to the improvement element. I think that the relevant figure is the total amount spent on school building, not the improvement element.
The right hon. Gentleman, more than anybody else in this House, knows that when a global figure is given for school building the Secretary of State for Education has very little control over the amount devoted to improvement. We have, first to put roofs over heads and we have to make sure that the children on new housing estates, in new towns and in new development areas have schools to go to. The fact that in these last four years we have had to devote a great deal of our school building to these new development areas surely reflects the success of our housing policy and what we have done in the development areas. In 1963–64 the allocation for school building was £74 million or, if we allow for rising costs, £87 million. The amount of our school building programme this year is £129 million, even after taking out the amount for the raising of the school leaving age.
I will not talk about the urban programme since we had a debate about that last year.
Perhaps I can sum up like this. In spite of our economic difficulties, this Rate Support Grant Order provides for expenditure by local authorities of over £6,000 million in the next two years, with annual increases in both years. The Order also provides for grant at a higher percentage rate than before—56 per cent. next year and 57 per cent. in 1970–71 instead of 54 per cent. and 55 per cent.; and domestic ratepayers will get relief to the tune of 1s. 3d. in the pound next year and 1s. 8d. in 1970–71.
How can the Opposition talk of cuts in the face of these figures? Do they, with their clamour for savings in public expenditure, think that we should do more or less? On every possible occasion they have been clamouring for cuts in public expenditure. Yet tonight we hear clamour for local authorities to spend more money.
In education there will not only be more pupils and students, but also more teachers and some room for improvement in the service generally. In other services—health and welfare, child care, police and the fire service, for instance—there will be a steady expansion.
It is true that in present circumstances we cannot afford the annual rate of growth of expenditure to which local authorities have been accustomed, but the Government are determined to devote the largest possible share of the national resources to all these important local authority services. We look to the local authorities to see that value is obtained for every pound spent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1968, dated 27th November, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC)

9.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliament Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (England and Wales) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested to both sides of the House that we take this Order and the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order, 1968 together. If there is no opposition, that is what we shall do. The Minister will move the first one only, but we shall discuss both.

Mr. Brown: I think it may assist the House if I explain briefly what these Orders do and then the reasons for them. The English and Welsh Order amends the Fourth Schedule to the Highways Act, 1959, which was previously amended by the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order 1961. These provisions lay down the different classes of traffic which may or may not be allowed to use the motorways. The Scottish Order is substantially the same, but relates to the Scottish legislation.
I should perhaps make one small point at the beginning. In response to a request in the Special Orders Committee in another place we propose a slight change in the Explanatory Note to the English and Welsh Order to make it more helpful. The second paragraph will now read:
This Order, by adding to Class II of that Schedule breakdown vehicles of up to 11½ tons in weight and disabled vehicles drawn thereby, will enable them to use motorways.
There are, in fact, eleven classes of traffic, but only traffic of Classes I and II is normally allowed to use the motorways at all times and for all journeys. Classes I and II consist of private cars, motor cycles, buses, lorries and vehicles used for carrying abnormal loads when they are specially authorised. Class II also includes a number of vehicles belonging to the Armed Services.
The only breakdown vehicles now in Class I—and so allowed unlimited use of the motorways—are those with an unladen weight of up to 7¼ tons. Bigger breakdown vehicles may sometimes use


the motorways, but only to recover vehicles that have actually broken down on the motorway itself. They may not. for example, be used to bring back along a motorway a vehicle that has broken down somewhere off the motorway. The effect of these Orders is to allow some of these larger breakdown vehicles—those of up to 11½ tons unladen weight—to use the motorways at any time, just like other breakdown vehicles. It does this by putting them into Class II.
We feel that there are very good reasons for making this change. In the first place, operators have claimed that the present situation causes them considerable inconvenience, and substantially increases costs to an important sector of industry. Secondly, the alternative routes that they are compelled to use often pass through densely populated, highly developed, and highly industrialised areas. When they are on these other roads, these large vehicles cause considerable congestion and frustration, and so increase costs for the community generally. We feel that it would be of general benefit if these vehicles were allowed to use the motorways freely. They have, in any case, been widely used in the past on motorways to recover broken down vehicles—so far as we know without any mishaps. It seems an anomaly that, whilst they have been used so successfully already, their presence on the motorways is still legally restricted.
Before agreeing to this change, I think the House will wish to be assured that there will be no ill effects on motorway safety. We have, of course, thoroughly examined the performance and capabilities of these vehicles and we have drafted the Order in such a way that the vehicle will have to be fully equipped with mud guards, springs and pneumatic tyres. It will also have to have a highly efficient braking system.
The vehicles will therefore be safe in themselves. They are also no bigger, or slower than many vehicles already using the motorways and they can maintain a speed of 45 m.p.h. when unloaded and up to about 35 m.p.h. when towing. They should therefore, fit into the stream of the other slower sorts of commercial traffic reasonably well in the inner lane on the motorway. Obviously, we should not want to see large numbers of these vehicles on the motorways and I can

assure the House that the number of vehicles affected by this concession is small—probably not more than a few hundred. And, of course, they will not all be on the motorways at the same time. We do not think that they will cause any significant difficulties for other motor vehicles on the motorway. We have, of course, consulted with all the interested organisations on this proposal and I am glad to say it has been almost universally welcomed.
But it has been suggested that we should widen the concession and allow a number of other types of heavy vehicles to use the motorways freely. We are prepared to look into this, but I can see some dangers in allowing on the motorways vehicles which are usually longer and heavier and slower than the vehicles we now have in mind. The limited proposal we have made should endanger no one, but we should want to look further into any wider concession. For this reason, we intend next year to carry out a general review of the Classes of Traffic Order when the other vehicles will of course be considered. This is a complex and difficult subject—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not pursue an amendment to his own Order on this Order.

Mr. Brown: In spite of what I was saying and what I intended to say, Mr. Speaker—meanwhile, it would be wrong for us to hold up this comparatively straightforward amendment, which will remove an anomaly which is particularly tiresome and costly for industry. I do not think that there is any fear of its causing danger to other road users.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Minister has said, the Classes of Traffic Orders which we have had in recent years have not been noted for fierce and fiery debate. The last such Order we had was in 1964, when we discussed the question whether we should add perambulators and dogs on leads to Class IX. This is a more significant Order. It is subject to the affirmative procedure.
At present, breakdown vehicles of only up to 7¼ tons are allowed on motorways. There has been a considerable increase in the size of the normal road


haulage vehicles using the motorways and in those circumstances a need has arisen for larger breakdown trucks on the motorways. This is part of the problem. If for no reason but the increase in the size of haulage vehicles there would have been a need for this Order. On the other hand, the Minister has rightly referred to the other reason. If one of these trucks has to travel a considerable distance to reach the site of a breakdown it is inevitable that it will cause congestion on some of the more minor roads. This is a very serious problem.
In those circumstances, it is clearly right that the Government should take some action in the matter before we have a general review at a later stage. I was particularly glad that the Minister gave an assurance on safety because, bearing in mind the speed of vehicles on motorways and the liability of accidents occurring, it is important that every possible safety precaution should be taken.
I have three questions on this non-controversial Order and would be glad if the Minister of State, Scottish Office, could deal with them. First, why have the Government decided on the figure of 11½ tons unladen? Inquiries by me and my hon. Friends reveal that there is a large standard breakdown vehicle of about 10 tons in general use. Is the Government's figure intended to cover all the known types of breakdown vehicle, or are they providing for those which are planned? In addition, I wonder whether this allows for technical developments and the larger sizes which are coming along.
Second, what is the extent of the problem? If a vehicle of 7½ tons requires to go on a motorway to deal with a breakdown, this is normally done in consultation with police authorities, so there must be a figure of the number of these vehicles concerned. Could the Minister of State give any figure? The Parliamentary Secretary was right to say that this problem might grow and that the numbers of these vehicles could expand because of the increasing size of road haulage vehicles.
My third question relates to the Scottish Order. Probably it has been brought forward to let us know that the Secretary of State is still there, but I wonder why

this has been done. This is a largely hypothetical question in Scotland. There are 500 miles and more of motorway in England, but the Scottish figure is very small. What number of miles of motorway in Scotland will be affected?
I am also interested in the question of motorway links with bridges. Because of our geography in Scotland, there are large bridges, like the Forth and the Tay Road Bridges, across estuaries and we have not yet given up hope of satisfactory motorway links with them all. What will be the position when a large breakdown truck travelling on a motorway requires to use one of these bridges? Will it be free to cross a bridge linking motorways? What regulations will apply? It would be ridiculous to allow these breakdown trucks to go on motorways and then subject them to a tedious diversion around a bridge.
I am also interested in the anomalies between classifications, comparing Scotland with England and Wales. Under Statutory Instrument No. 1210 of 1961, classes 10 and 11 in England and Wales deal with motor cycles with cylindrical capacities of less than 50 c.c. and invalid carriages. In Scotland on the other hand, both these are included under Class 8, under Statutory Instrument No. 1084 of 1964. Do these Orders remove this anomaly? If not, why has not the Minister taken the necessary steps?
This is an important step which should be taken, to remove a minor anomaly. Subject to satisfactory answers to these questions, we will fully support it.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I also support this Order. As the year comes to an end, it is extraordinary to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) saying something non-controversial and to see the Minister of State making ready to reply in like vein.
I am interested in what these large vehicles do before and after using motorways. I am all for them using them, and for there being more motorways, but once they are on the motorways, they will cause congestion and trouble. Will special arrangements be made with the police when they travel? Will the B.B.C. broadcast warnings to the public? Some access roads to motorways, quite


apart from bridges, are on the narrow side. Can these heavy loads travel on them? The Minister said that they were only 100, and obviously they will not all be travelling at the same time. Nevertheless, they will cover a considerable amount of ground, and I should like his assurance that they will not cause congestion, not only on the motorways but on other roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cath-cart asked for details of motorways in Scotland. Wales too, is sadly lacking in motorway miles, and this is very important. Another point is to do with the lighting of these vehicles. Will they be specially lit? Under existing regulations they are not very well-lit, particularly from behind. Even at 70 miles an hour, one can approach these slow-moving vehicles quickly and this might lead to trouble. Should not new regulations be made? I am glad that there is to be a review, but surely the answer now is to pass this Order and to start on more motorways as soon as possible.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I have several points to raise. I do not approve of these vehicles being treated unilaterally. The issue is whether there is a case for the extension of the use of motorways for additional types of vehicles, and if there is whether this should be dealt with in isolation. To that extent I do not agree with the Ministry. This should have been deferred until some other census had been made. I have heard nothing to justify this proposed action. The Minister talked about the obvious congestion on the Al and other major trunk roads but produced no evidence to support his case and I was somewhat unconvinced. It is true that there are accidents which lead to the slowing-up of traffic.
Will these heavy repair and casualty units come from existing repair stations on the motorways? If so, what evidence have we of that? Will they be confined to the heavy vehicles from those repair points or will others be brought in from elsewhere? We are talking about ponderous and difficult vehicles, travelling at about 20 miles an hour. It would no: worry me as a motorist on the slow lane, but it worries me when I think of what could happen in fog conditions. Is there a case for this unusual

user to travel, in the main, on the motorway shoulder? Would not this be much safer for all?
It is becoming accepted practice in the transport trade for "casualty" and similar vehicles which are likely to be performing unusual movements on motorways and other roads to be painted front and back in bright colours to warn other road users of possible danger. In granting this exemption, we should require all vehicles of this type to be vividly coloured and well-illuminated to ensure that we are not creating more hazards than we are trying to cure.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I will not reiterate the points raised by my hon. Friends on this matter, because I wish to be brief, but I comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who wondered why we needed an Instrument to apply only to a special class of vehicle and not more generally. The answer was provided by the Minister, and it is on this subject that I wish to make a brief intervention.
It is not generally appreciated in this country that we are nearly at the stage when some of our motorways are reaching saturation point. When that point is reached it will be extremely dangerous for all road users and it will be more difficult for breakdown vehicles to reach the scene of an accident. I recall being on a German autobahn south of Frankfurt on a double two-lane motorway without hard shoulders when there was a bad accident quite a long distance ahead. The resultant congestion was so bad that even the road through Honiton on a busy day would not be more congested. Adequate facilities were not available to enable breakdown vehicles to get to the scene of the accident and clear up the mess.
It is important when accidents occur on motorways that the damaged vehicles are removed as quickly as possible. I therefore welcome the provisions of this Instrument because they will make it easier for appropriate breakdown vehicles to get to the scene of an accident, remove damaged vehicles and release the motorway for use. However, we do not want unnecessarily to multiply the number of vehicles already using our motorways.
Thus, while it is necessary to have a sufficient number of breakdown vehicles to avoid congestion, we do not want to authorise too many heavy vehicles of all sorts particularly when near-saturation point is being reached.

9.54 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I support the Order and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Explanatory Note relating to the England and Wales Order is being amended to correspond with the Instrument applying to Scotland. The original Explanatory Note said nothing about motorways. It is important that the Note is amended because this is legislation by reference and it is therefore not fully intelligible to the average person. I am glad, therefore, that the omission is being rectified.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) I am concerned about the number of heavy vehicles of the type we are discussing which will be on double two-lane motorways. I have in mind the M4 and particularly the overhead section of it from Chiswick to a point about four miles further West. On that section of the motorway lorries of this size could easily block the carriageway in both directions.
Arising out of that aspect, what will be their speed when towing vehicles? We have been told that it will be up to 35 miles an hour. Do these vehicles not only tow but carry broken-down, disabled vehicles in the same way that some of those enormous transporters used for abnormal indivisible loads carry transformers and the like? Or do they only tow? If they carry vehicles, that makes a difference in the weight per axle—does that make any difference to their speed?
Is there a limit to the weight which bridges carrying motorways over other roads and carrying access or other roads over motorways can take? Some of the older motorways, such as the Preston by-pass—which was, I think, the first—were possibly built to standards different from those of later motorways. Does that make any difference? Is there any section of any motorway on which it would be dangerous for these vehicles to travel?

9.56 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I do not welcome the Order because, as has

already been said, the motorways are becoming extremely congested with the existing traffic. This traffic is building up week by week, month by month, to alarming proportions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) has just said, some of the two-lane sections are getting into a very choked and critical condition, especially at rush hours.
My hon. Friend referred to sections of the M4 which are two-lane, but I want to ask about another section of another motorway—the bottleneck 17 miles north of London near the junction of the A41 and the M1. The M1 was our first motorway, and for several miles it is still only a dual carriageway both ways. If these heavy vehicles are to be allowed to get on to the M1 before reaching the end of the two-lane section the congestion there, which already at peak hours slows to a crawl, as I know, will be absolutely frightful.
I also do not particularly like the Order because in it the Minister is performing one of the more elementary errors of traffic control. Good traffic control lays down that one should, wherever possible, try to keep the very fast and the very slow traffic apart, yet here we will have vehicles of excessive length rumbling along at about 20 miles an hour allowed to use the same roads as vehicles speeding along at 70 miles an hour.
I also oppose the Order because of the very alarming accident rate on the M1 which has risen very steeply in the last six months. If the Minister is not aware of the statistics he should ask his backroom boys at St. Christopher's House just what the accident rate is on the Ml in the Midlands, towards Leicester, in recent months. If he studies the statistics, as we have, he will realise that an Order asking for more heavy, large and slow vehicles to be put on an already overburdened and congested motorway, which in parts is narrowed to dual carriageway only, is not a good Order.

9.59 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): This very short, useful debate has brought out a number of the problems which the Government faced when they decided to bring these Orders to the House. It is quite true that people are


getting worried about the congestion and what is termed the saturation of the motorways, but everyone will recognise that the breakdowns on the motorways themselves are a serious cause of congestion. One has to weigh in the balance the removing of what one hopes will be temporary obstacles as quickly as possible against the possible effect of these heavier vehicles, going up to the top weight for light locomotives, themselves using the roads. This is the very difficult decision the Government have had to make.
I readily admit that in Scotland it is not such a great problem, but it would be a mistake if the Scots, considering the problems our English friends have, did not agree to go along with them in making an Order of a comparable kind. It would lead to great confusion among users of the road if they found quite different regulations applying once they crossed the Border. Uniformity in certain things is desirable, and it certainly is in road regulations. The Statute under which the Scottish Order is made is different from that giving powers for the English Order. I believe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) will agree that it does not follow that if there are discrepancies and anomalies in various English and Scottish Acts which we have inherited at this time we should not take advantage of the opportunity to clear up and remove some of those anomalies.
I agree that it would be a good idea if we could clear up all these differences. There are nine classes in the Scottish Order and 11 in the English Order. I agree that we should try to put that right. The House will not be surprised to learn that we have been pressed to include more than these vehicles in this Order. On balance we think it would be a mistake to concede to that request at this stage. Perhaps to concede it at all would be a mistake, but at this stage it certainly would be wrong to include other vehicles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) asked about the origin of these vehicles. It would be difficult to ascertain that. We decided to classify them according to the provision in: he Act right up to the legal limit for light locomotives. Someone argued that we should go beyond 11½

tons, but that would bring us into the category of heavy locomotives, and the speed of these vehicles is greater than that of heavy locomotives. Up to 1955 there was no requirement to fit front-wheel brakes to them and they might be considered to have inferior braking systems. Although there was some demand for including heavier locomotives for contractors, bulldozers and so on, I am sure the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) would be shocked if we included them in an Order such as this.
The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) referred to congestion on other roads where these vehicles are allowed to rescue vehicles that have broken down, and the necessity to get them off motor roads as soon as possible. I believe this Order will help in relieving congestion. The number of vehicles affected is estimated by the Ministry at perhaps not more than 500. That is a quite significant figure governing these vehicles within the definition of a light locomotive.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Cathcart about motorways in Scotland. The mileage in Scotland is now 37 as compared with two miles four years ago, so it is significant to have a reference to this matter in a Scottish Order dealing with motorways. We have 131 miles of dual carriageway as opposed to 88 miles four years ago which is a significant advance.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) if I could give some indication of the speed limits for light locomotives in certain circumstances. On general purpose roads it is 20 m.p.h. and on motorways 70 m.p.h. With a two-wheel towing implement it is only 12 m.p.h. on general purpose roads and 20 m.p.h. on motorways under the Construction and Use Regulations. I admit that that is a criticism. I readily concede it. When the towing vehicle is on its own the limit will be 20 m.p.h. on general purpose roads and 70 m.p.h. on motorways. When there is a disabled vehicle on the towing implement it will be 12 m.p.h. on general purpose roads and 70 m.p.h. on motorways.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that a desirable rate in practice on the motorway was 35–40 m.p.h., and if that


was encouraged there would be insistence on such vehicles using the slow lane for travelling in order not to delay other travellers.
We have no desire in connection with the Order to suggest that there should be special police precautions. If there are peculiar circumstances, we readily admit that such might be desirable. But it depends on the nature of the crash and the vehicles being towed away. Nevertheless, there will not be special arrangements governing this.
I am much obliged to the House for its friendly reception of the Order.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of bridges linking motorways?

Dr. Mabon: There is no difficulty here. If there is a commercial toll, it will be applied. There is no difficulty about loads or anything like that in relation to motorway bridges.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (England and Wales) Order, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order, 1968 [copy laid before the House 20th November], approved. —[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

WATER SUPPLIES (CANTERBURY)

10.6 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I beg to move,
That the Mid Kent Water (Canterbury) Order 1968, dated 17th July, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled.
The Order has been made as a result of a joint application by the Mid Kent Water Company and the Canterbury and District Water Company to the Minister. Objections to this amalgamation were made by the four local authorities which make up my constituency, and it is for that reason that I speak tonight. The four local authorities are the Canterbury City Council, the Herne Bay Urban District Council, the Whitstable Urban District Council, and the Bridge-Blean Urban District Council.
As a result of this protest and these objections from the four local authorities, the Minister ordered a public inquiry, which took place in September, 1966. On the findings of the inspector, the Minister decided that the Order should be allowed. I consider that the Minister has made a serious error of judgment in this case. In the prevailing climate of Government opinion regarding the encouragement of mergers in industry generally, the Minister has, I think, too readily accepted that this merger will be to the benefit of the public. I suggest that he was wrong to accept that the takeover of the Canterbury Company was necessary. It was not necessary. Not one of the four local authorities could find a valid reason for it. The Canterbury Company was, and is, an efficient water company providing a fully adequate supply of wholesome water.
All four local authorities were unanimous in their views, and they are certainly interested parties. They are the representatives of the people. Are they not to be heard? They are well advised by their officers and well informed on the complexities of water conservation and supply. They have their constituents' interest at heart, and so have I. They are the same people that we are talking about. That is why I am here at this hour, allowed by the special procedures that the House has voted to hon. Members to make a representation to the House at the eleventh hour, to argue that the Minister should recognise the strong feelings which are held by my local authorities and constituents. Will he not consider that Whitehall can sometimes be wrong and that the views of people directly affected may be right, perhaps just once?
It is my right to protest tonight against the Order. I ask the Minister to think again. We do not have much time to debate the issue, and I shall not range over a great many of the technical details which I could introduce if I sought to use them, but I regard the principle of the matter as outstanding: it is the local view versus the Whitehall view.
The local authorities say, and I say, that the decision is wrong. The Minister has accepted his civil servants' papers and used their rubber stamp without sufficient care. He normally takes great care in all his actions. In another office, the


right hon. Gentleman earned the respect of both sides of the House for his understanding, for his readiness to listen, and for his acceptance of commercial requirements as well as social needs. Will he listen now and agree with me? Is he prepared to show that he is master of his Department, the political Minister who always puts the interests of the people before the expediencies of neat administration?
What is the need for this amalgamation of two water companies? What is the reason for it? There is no word of explanation in the Order. Is it to reduce the water rate charges? Is it to produce a better balanced supply to a larger area? Or is it bigness for bigness' sake?
There will be no question of reduced water rates. My advice is that they will rise. This is a monstrous factor to emerge from the merger. In my local newspaper, the Kentish Gazette of last Friday, 6th December, there was a report which said:
Mr. Robert Robinson, a consultant engineer, claimed that the amalgamation would mean that Canterbury people who have in the past received water from underground supplies would be obliged to receive inferior water while the best went to Mid-Kent.
There is thus the question of what type of water we are now to receive; not only the question of rising charges but the question of quality, too.
There is serious doubt regarding the engineering arguments which were put forward by the two companies proposing the amalgamation and which have been accepted by the Minister. The possibility of an enlarged water company to cover a larger area has been under review for many years by the local water experts. The local companies work in close harmony with one another, as it is essential they should. Each has its separate cachment area, and they do not attempt to poach one another's water. It would be disastrous if they did.
The Mid Kent Company takes water from the village of Barham near Canterbury. Another company, a third company, the Thanet Water Board, extracts water further down the underground line at Wingham and Littlebourne. There is an underground supply of water in this area, as the Minister will know from his advice. Increased extraction up the line at Barham would rob all sources lower

down, but increased extraction lower down by the Thanet Water Board would not affect the source higher up at Barham, the source for Mid Kent Company. Obviously, there has to be good liaison between these two companies, and there is. But Littlebourne and Wingham, the two towns down the line from Barham, serve the Thanet Board as catchment areas. They are four and six miles from Canterbury respectively.
I agree that liaison is necessary between companies regarding adjacent water sources, but what is even more important is that, if there is to be a merger between two companies, it should be between the right two companies. The inspector spoke in his report of the need to amalgamate the Canterbury Company with a neighbouring authority, because he said that it was small. I suggest that the appropriate neighbouring authority, its natural neighbour, is Thanet. Why link Canterbury, Whitstable and Herne Bay—the area served by the Canterbury Company—with Snodland, an industrial area many miles north of Canterbury between Maidstone and Dartford? I know that Mid-Kent wants extra water because it has a large industrial area to supply.
What is the grand stategy of the amalgamation? Is it more water for the cement industry and less for Canterbury—at higher prices? It is a merger against the tide, a merger upstream. The only obvious merger is between Canterbury and the Thanet Board. There is an affinity of interests between them. They operate their extraction and supply side by side. They are geographically similar, and so natural is their similarity that I am advised that amalgamation of those two would very likely result in a decrease in water rates and not an increase. Furthermore, the resources of both companies are adequate for their joint needs.
The Chief Engineer of the Thanet Board said in a report in April this year, which the Minister may not have seen as it was produced for the Board:
The Thanet Water Board can no longer reasonably assume the future implementation of its overall strategy—believed to be known and accepted by the Minister—of development of the available local potential underground water resources. This establishes a need for a reappraisal of the development of the whole of the resources in North-East Kent which the Minister may feel leads through to a case for


Canterbury and Thanet joining together and thus fulfil what is believed to be the intention of the Minister responsible for Water Supplies in 1948, as set out in the so-called "Vail Report" of that date.
If there is a case for bigness, for yet another merger, with no disadvantage to the consumer, it is for one between Canterbury and the Thanet Water Board, and not between Canterbury and Mid-Kent.
I ask the Minister to accept my earnest plea that the Order should be annulled now, while there is still time. I know that he will feel that he wants to get on with the job of agreeing to the recommendation he has been given, but will he not pause? It is my duty, given to me by Parliament, to represent my constituents' wishes that he changes his mind and permits further studies to be made and a better judgment to prevail.

10.19 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has deployed with great moderation his case against what he has categorised as a serious error of judgment by my right hon. Friend. As he told the House, the Order was made by the Minister on 17th July at the request of the two bodies and after a public local inquiry into objections by the four local authorities whose areas are wholly or partly supplied by the Canterbury Company, the four local authorities which comprise the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman repeated many of the objections made at the inquiry. He said that local authorities are the representatives of the people, and then asked, "Are they not to be heard?" The main burden of what I have to say is that they have been heard. Their views have been carefully weighed by an independent inspector before a public inquiry and were not upheld.
Like the local authorities, the hon. Gentleman would have preferred the Canterbury undertaking to have been taken over not by the Mid-Kent company but by the Thanet Water Board. I shall come to that later. First, I wish to fill in some background.
Since before the last war, there has been an advisory committee on water supplies for Kent, consisting of repre-

sentatives of the County Council, which provided the Chairman, and of the water undertakers. This Committee has planned regrouping in the County. The amalgamation we are discussing was recommended by the Committee in 1963. The Minister offered no objections in principle to the amalgamation of the two bodies and they made an application in 1964 for an Order under the Water Act, 1945.
The Mid-Kent company serves an area of about 800 square miles with a population of about 280,000. Its existing resources are sufficient to meet present demand and the development of new underground sources will enable it to meet expected demand until about 1980, after which a new river source and a large storage reservoir will be needed.
These figures compare with the Canterbury's company's 73 square miles and a population for its area which varies between 91,000 in the winter and 110,000 in the summer. Thus, the amalgamation joins a predominantly rural to a predominantly urban area, which is one of the general objectives in regroupings.
At the inquiry, the inspector found that the only practicable alternative to this merger—and the one which the hon. Gentleman and the objectors would have preferred—would have been a takeover of the Canterbury undertaking by the Thanet Water Board, which is the only other water undertaker adjoining the Canterbury area. This would have meant joining two similar, mainly urban, areas and the inspector recognised that there were arguments for and against this course. He did not, however, find any advantages in the alternative which would justify adopting it rather than the proposed amalgamation.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that, in some way, the water that will be going to Canterbury when the merger takes effect will be inferior to that which goes to the rest of mid-Kent. I doubt whether he put this allegation very seriously but, whilst the use of the resources available to any water companies is a matter for them, I assure him and the House that there need be no concern whatever about the quality of the water from whatever source it may come.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of the water to his constituents,


about which he is rightly concerned. The mid-Kent poundage is higher than that of Canterbury but the differential between the two has been tending to narrow—indeed, it has done so. During the current year, the poundage in mid-Kent is 1s. 8½d. and that in Canterbury 1s. 4d. The Order makes provision for a 25 per cent. reduction in poundage in the Canterbury area for the first five years. In other words, had this Order been in effect now, Canterbury would be paying almost exactly the same amount for its water as it is under the separate undertaking.
The Inspector considered that the financial effects were the most important in the case for the objectors and he gave considerable space to them in his Report. The evidence was not conclusive but he formed the view that the proposals would not cause hardship as compared with the probable movements in water rates and the charges, and that the tendency would be for the effects of capital expenditure in the absence of reorganisation to be proportionately heavier on Canterbury consumers than on those of mid-Kent.
I should like to refer to the alternative proposals for amalgamation with the Thanet Board. The situation was that when the pattern of regrouping was under consideration, as it was before the Order was made, the Thanet Board was not prepared to take over the Canterbury area. At the public local inquiry the Thanet Board was represented and at that time it said that it neither supported nor opposed the Order, and that if the Minister were to reject it it would be pre-

pared in principle to take over the Canterbury undertaking, but that everything would depend on the terms and that it would expect provision for differential rates and charges. The inspector inferred from this that initially the Canterbury area consumers would secure no reduction in their charges, but no detailed proposals had been worked out. Having surveyed all the evidence and facts before him, he concluded that the objectors had shown no advantages in the alternative to be of sufficient importance to justify its adoption in preference to the proposals in the application from the two companies.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a report from an engineer dealing with the future of water in this area. No one will suggest that the present Order sets a seal to water organisation in Kent for all time, but one step at a time is sufficient and this in our view is a useful step in the right direction. It is difficult to envisage any revised system of water supply which would split the mid-Kent area from that of Canterbury, but both might fall into some larger area on further reorganisation.
I repeat, in our view this is a step in the right direction. Now that he has put his views and represented the interests of his constituents as he sees them, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that all these matters have been fully and objectively examined, and for that reason I hope that he will not feel it necessary to pursue his Prayer to a Division.

Question put and negatived.

NARBOROUGH RAILWAY STATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. McBride.]

10.28 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: Nar-borough is a station on the Leicester to Birmingham line which was closed on 4th March, this year, and that fact alone makes this debate unusual, because I am not seeking to prevent a closure, but trying to secure the re-opening of Narborough Station. I would not be attempting this course unless there were firm and unusual grounds for this action to be taken.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, all the usual closure procedures were followed by the Railways Board. The proposal to close the station was advertised, there was the appropriate T.U.C.C. hearing and the closure of Narborough and other stations on the Birmingham-Leicester line was confirmed by the Minister on economic grounds. Due to extreme local pressure and the numbers—about 2,500 weekly—using the line, Blaby Rural District Council and parish councils which were affected decided to organise a petition which was signed by more than 1,300 regular users of the service and sent to British Railways who in reply on 9th January, this year, said that the financial position did not justify retention of the local stations.
I want here to pay a compliment to Blaby Rural District Council, because, with great perseverance and initiative, it decided to find out what was the financial position in relation to one of the stations due to be closed on 4th March of this year. I refer, of course, to Narborough.
A deputation from the rural district council met the Divisional Manager of British Railways on 28th February to discuss the matter. As a result of that meeting, which was held in the council offices at Blaby, the council received the following letter from the Divisional Manager dated 19th March. He refers to the council's earlier letter, and continues:
I now enclose a firm proposal giving details of the train services I would be able to provide from Narborough station, together

with the station terminal costs which your council will be called upon to provide to establish this service. The most suitable date for the implementation of these proposals would be 6th May, 1968, when our summer timetable alterations come into being, and, should the decision of your council be that they are prepared to finance this service, I should require at least a month from the date of such decision to get things moving. I should be grateful if you could bear this in mind. I also enclose details as promised showing the cheap day fares which were operative prior to the withdrawal of services.
I want to call special attention to certain phrases used in that letter. It is not an ambiguous letter. In the first paragraph, it states quite clearly that he is enclosing "a firm proposal". In the second paragraph, he goes so far as to suggest a date for the recommencing of train services to Narborough. He even encloses specific details of the proposed timetable up to 4th May and that after 6th May of this year, should the council accept the proposals. He also details the contributions which the council would be required to make to keep this facility: namely, if the station were staffed from Monday to Friday, £1,300 per annum; and if it were staffed from Monday to Saturday, £1,500 per annum.
The members of the council were delighted to receive that letter, but they discussed it amongst themselves to decide how best to relieve their ratepayers of the sum of money that they were required to find, namely, £1,500. Accordingly, they conducted correspondence with British Railways for a week or two until, as a result of what the Railways Board wrote on 24th May, the council agreed formally and notified the Railways Board that the outline given by British Railways of the services that they would provide in their letter of 19th March was accepted, and they asked for a legal agreement to be entered into with the Railways Board.
So the matter rested for four weeks, until 21st June, when they were told out of the blue that British Railways would not proceed, as the reopening of Narborough station, in the words of the Divisional Manager,
… would alter the characteristics of the line and might encourage other local authorities to apply to have their own local stations reopened.


It is not too much to say that the whole district was incensed when this complete about turn of policy by the Railways Board was received and made public. The council had been submitted firm proposals by the responsible Divisional Manager, and, so taken aback by this volte face was the council that, not unnaturally, they asked me for help.
I wrote to the Minister, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate tonight, in his letter of 1st August told me that the responsibility for such affairs rested with the Railways Board. I accordingly wrote to the Chairman of the Railways Board, and on 9th October he replied saying that the responsibility for such affairs rested with the General Manager of the specific region within which Narborough railway station falls.
On 14th November, a deputation from the council and myself were lucky enough to have a meeting with the General Manager of the region at Euston. The General Manager was very courteous. He listened with care and attention to the proposals which were put to him by the council. But, at the end, he firmly told the council that the Railways Board was not prepared to reconsider its decision to close down Narborough station, pointing out that it was not so much a matter of finance, but a matter of policy that was involved.
My reason for being here tonight is to try to put to the House my own view, which simply is that Blaby Rural District Council has been kicked from pillar to post in this business. Narborough station is closed; a firm offer is received from the Railways Board to reopen it; and, as soon as this is accepted by the council, the Railways Board withdraw the offer.
As I have said, the negotiations were conducted at the appropriate local level—that is, Divisional Manager—and the arrangements made by the Divisional Manager should be honoured by the Railways Board.
Let me put this to the Minister. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tonight were to have a decision that he had properly taken publicly annulled by the Minister of Transport, confusion would reign at St. Christopher House. It would be unheard of for a Minister publicly to refute an arrangement which had been

entered into by his deputy. Surely I am not being unreasonable in asking that the same principle should apply here. A great public monopoly like British Railways must play to the rules. I ask the Minister, as he has the power, to direct the Railways Board to reopen Narborough station on the basis which has already been agreed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for raising the subject of the closure of Narborough station.
I know very well that there was a great deal of local dissatisfaction at the decision of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, when she was Minister of Transport in August, 1967, to give consent to the Railways Board's proposals for the closure of a number of small intermediate stations—one of which was Narborough—between Birmingham and Leicester.
I sympathise with the feelings of the hon. Member and his constituents at no longer having a rail passenger service calling at Narborough station. But this must be seen in a wider perspective than the purely local one.
First, let me reiterate that the decision to give consent to closure of Narborough station was taken only after very full consideration of all the issues involved. Detailed information on the use made of Narborough station, the views of the East Midlands Transport Users' Consultative Committee on hardship which would result from closure, and advice from the Regional Economic Planning Council and from my right hon. Friend's colleagues concerned with particular aspects such as future development, industry and employment, were available to us.
We recognised that the alternative use of buses would not necessarily be as convenient as the rail service. This was well recognised and was explained at the time. The question was whether the difference would be such as to cause undue hardship.
The fact remains that when the Minister was looking at this case originally she was concerned not only with the economies to be achieved from the individual station closures, but the sort of service


that would be of the greatest benefit for the majority of people using the service over the whole area. It was in the light of all these factors that consent to closure of Narborough and the other stations was given.
Following the enactment of the Transport Bill, it might be argued that the situation has changed since consent was given to closure of Narborough station, to the extent that the Minister has more direct responsibility for the way this service is operated in that he will be grant-aiding the total service. But this does not alter the fact that the Minister must still look at the benefits of the service as a whole. Social needs of the area were taken into account when deciding to give consent to closure, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the situation has changed since the closure decision was given in 1967.
Indeed, as part of the examination of this case which led up to the announcement by my right hon. Friend on 15th November that this service would be one of those which he is going to grant-aid from 1st January next year, we did look at the sort of people using the service, and considered quite firmly that a limited-stop service would provide much greater benefits than the previous local stopping service.
I recognise that this kind of argument may seem rather irrelevant when the hon. Gentleman is referring to only one out of what were 17 stations on the route between Nottingham and Birmingham. But, although this point is the sole subject of our debate tonight, I should tell the House that we have already had similar approaches in respect of three other stations on the Nottingham-Birmingham route.
The Minister in considering the social needs of the services would not be doing his duty if he ended up with the old

service reinstated. He is convinced that he gets the best value for money—and we must remember that it is grant-aided—from the way in which the present service is operated. My right hon. Friend is completely unconvinced that there is any case for spending Government money on reopening Narborough Station as compared with all the other claims he has to consider under Section 39 of the Transport Act.
He can certainly make no promises at all, but, if there were to be general local agreement—and by that I mean general agreement locally—that it would improve the facilities for local people if just one or two stations were re-opened on this route, and if it were clear that any agreement would not be the precursor of similar claims to any other closed stations, and provided that there were local agreement to pay the additional grant required to re-open and maintain them, then I think my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consult the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for the area with a view to considering whether the increase to local amenities would offset the slight disadvantages caused to longer distance travellers by these additional stops.
I feel that that is as far as I can go on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the proposition which I have made, and will take it back to his local people to see what they think of it. I stress that we really mean a general agreement, in order to avoid the continual raising of cases for all the 17 stations along the line. I hope that, following the history of this line, the hon. Gentleman may be a little grateful at least for the efforts we have tried to make on his behalf.

Question put and agreed to.

A djourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.